Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Birmingham United Hospital Bill [Lords],

Newport Extension Bill [Lords],

West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Chailey Rural District Council Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Blackburn) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COTTON INDUSTRY (JAPANESE COMPETITION, INDIA).

Mr. CHORLTON: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that in the, Indo-Japanese agreement and treaty, on account of the ratio of exchange being fixed on the lower basis on which it stood on 31st December, 1933, any British cotton piece-goods, even if the manufacturing costs were based on a parity with those of the Japanese, would enter British India on the present tariff rates at a disadvantage of 15 per cent. to 17 per cent. against their Japanese competitors; and what steps he intends to take to rectify this position?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am aware of the advantage enjoyed by Japanese exporters owing to the depreciation of the yen, but the position will be eased by the quantitative limitation of imports of Japanese cotton piece goods into India
under the Indo-Japanese Commercial Convention as well as by the imposition of specific duties on particular classes of cotton piece goods.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the quantitative restrictions apply to the whole of India, that is to say, to the native States as well as to British India?

Sir S. HOARE: I think I had better have notice of that question.

MANCHURIA.

Mr. CHORLTON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has anything further to report with reference to the large order, totalling some £25,000,000 in value, obtained by a French trade representative in Manchukuo.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): According to the Japanese Press, a provisional agreement for the formation of a Franco-Japanese consortium designed to promote French trade with Manchuria was concluded at Tokio on the 3rd March between representatives of the South Manchurian Railway and of certain French interests. This agreement is subject to ratification by the parties concerned. It is not understood to involve orders of any such magnitude as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. CHORLTON: Is there no possibility of our coming to some arrangement of the same nature, or is our trade to be entirely lost?

Sir J. SIMON: I sincerely hope not, but the hon. Member will observe that the transaction to which he has directed attention was the result of private enterprise on the part of trading interests in the two countries concerned.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman looking into the question of whether, owing to our non-recognition of Manchukuo, adequate advice and assistance are available through the British Consular service to enable British firms to do business in this way?

Sir J. SIMON: The Noble Lord is quite right in speaking of non-recognition, but that applies to the other country concerned. None the less, I am satisfied that our Consular service in Manchuria operates quite effectively.

TIMBER IMPORTS (RUSSIAN ORIGIN).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the large quantity of cheap timber recently imported into Finland from the Russian Soviet Union which, after being sawn and planed in Finland, is exported to Great Britain as Finnish timber, thereby injuring the home lumber trade; and what action is being taken in this matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am aware that there is a trade in timber which is exported from Russia into neighbouring countries (including Finland) mainly in the form of logs, and that a certain quantity of this timber is re-exported after undergoing certain processes. This trade has been in existence for a number of years, and I have no reason to suppose that the recent importations into Finland have been other than normal.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman keep an eye on this matter in order to See that there is no abnormal importation of this wood from Finland?

Dr. BURGIN: Certainly, it will be most closely watched.

LEVANT FAIR.

Mr. JANNER: 20.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any information to show that the British official pavilion at the Levant Fair, Tel Aviv, will be ready by the opening date of this fair on 26th April; what is the total number of British firms which will be represented at this fair; and what arrangements have been made to deal with applications for space in excess of that available in the official pavilion?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I understand from the Federation of British Industries, which is responsible for its organisation, that it is confidently anticipated that the British pavilion will be ready by the opening day; that according to the latest information available, 164 United Kingdom firms will be represented; and that, in the event of space not being available for late applicants in the British pavilion, the fair authorities will find room for them in adjacent buildings.

Mr. JANNER: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in respect of the erection of an aerodrome in or in the neighbourhood of Tel Aviv; and what facilities are being provided for air transport to the Levant Fair?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am informed by the High Commissioner for Palestine that arrangements are being made for the establishment of a temporary aerodrome near Lydda, which it is hoped will be ready for use when the Levant Fair opens on the 26th April.

IRISH CALF SKINS (IMPORTS).

Mr. HUTCHISON (by Private Notice): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the action of the Irish Free State in offering a bounty of 10s. on calf skins, whereby the English market in skins is glutted with imports, he will consider the immediate prohibition for the present of all such imports from the Free State?

Dr. BURGIN: There is no power under existing legislation to take the action suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. HUTCHISON: Is my hon. Friend aware of the wholesale butchery which has taken place recently in Southern Ireland; and will he inquire into the matter and see whether some legislation can be brought forward to prohibit these imports?

Dr. BURGIN: The whole matter to which my hon. Friend is drawing attention is extremely recent. I have seen Press reports, and am awaiting further information. The effect on British agriculture and British trade will, of course, be watched very closely.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman in his consideration of this matter, take care that nothing is done to make the work of the Dominions Secretary more difficult than it is?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

DISTURBANCES, PESHAWAR (COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCES).

Mr. MAXTON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India the names of the 17 men of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal
Garhwali Rifles sentenced to various terms of imprisonment in connection with the disturbances at Peshawar on 23rd April, 1930, as the result of a court-martial at Abbottabad in June, 1930; will he state the individual sentences inflicted on each man; the place of their detention; their present condition of health; whether any of these prisoners have been released, and, if so, which; and whether he will consider the release of any who may be still serving their sentences?

Sir S. HOARE: I am circulating the names of the men and their individual sentences. I have no information regarding the third and fourth parts of the question. Under the normal practice by which His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief reviews periodically the sentences of all persons convicted by courts-martial, eight of the men had been released by the end of 1932, and more may have been released since that date; I do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief in the matter.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman get the details that he is unable to give now?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Following are the names and sentences:


Rank and Name.
Sentence. Transportation for—


Havildar Chander Sing
Life.


Havildar Narain Sing
15 years.


Naik Kechar Sing
10 years.


Naik Jit Sing
10 years.



Rigorous imprisonment for—


Naik Harak Sing
8 years.


Naik Bhola Sing
6 years.


Lance Naik Bhim Sing
8 years.


Lance Naik Anand Sing
5 years.


Lance Naik Khusal Sing
5 years.


Lance Naik Umrao Sing
6 years.


Lance Naik Hukam Sing
8 years.


Lance Naik Sundar Sing
5 years.


Lance Naik Ratan Sing
4 years.


Lance Naik Jot Sing
6 years (granted remission of 1 year).


Lance Naik Alam Sing
4 years.


Lance Naik Bhawan Sing
3 years.


Lance Naik Mahindar Sing
3 years.

TROOPS, BENGAL (CONDUCT).

Mr. MORGAN JONES (for Mr. DAVID GRENFELL): 3.
asked the Secretary
of State for India whether he is aware of the complaints now being made by people living in the villages of Patya and Dhalgat, in Chittagong, regarding certain indignities to which they are being subjected by order of the commanders of military pickets, and of the night raids which these pickets carry out in the district; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the reasons for the action of the military?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I have no information on this subject. If the hon. Member desires, I will make inquiries, but I would like to take this opportunity of saying, as was stated by the Home Member of the Government of India in the Assembly on the 21st March, that an examination of various complaints about the conduct of the troops in Bengal has shown that they were either without foundation or greatly exaggerated.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

BRITISH CREDITORS AND EXPORTS.

Sir CYRIL COBB: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ask the German Government for an estimate of the percentage of the sterling funds retained, under the German debt moratorium, which will be used for financing German exports and for the recently announced increased expenditure on German re-armaments, respectively; and will he forward the information to the British representative on the German debt moratorium for his use at the conference in Berlin on 27th April?

Sir J. SIMON: As stated in the Reich-bank communiqué of the 1st February-last, the Gold Discount Bank at Berlin is prepared to purchase scrip from British holders of German external loans at 67 per cent. of its par value. German exporters are allowed in certain cases to purchase the scrip at a correspondingly reduced price from the Gold Discount Bank and to resell it at par to the German Conversion Office. In this way the sterling sums which the British creditors forego are used to promote German exports. They are not available as revenue to cover the expenditure of the German Government, whether on armaments or otherwise.
As regards the second part of the question, the representatives of the British bondholders who will attend the meeting at Berlin on the 27th April are already aware of the facts given in the reply to the first part of the question.

ZIRCONIUM ORE IMPORTS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that Germany has recently imported some 100 tons of zirconium ore from Brazil, and that this ore is mainly employed to obtain an alloy which is used for the lining of heavy guns; and whether any request has been addressed to the German Government for information on this matter?

Sir J. SIMON: I have seen in the Press a statement to the effect that 96 tons of zirconium ore were shipped from Brazil to Germany last February. According to my information, this ore is not used in the manufacture of steel and does not therefore figure in the manufacture of gun linings. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: What is the ore used for?

Sir J. SIMON: I am informed that it is used for the lining of furnaces.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN AND CHINA.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has received any notification from Japan of her intention to redefine her policy in the Far East, with the object of claiming a controlling voice over China's foreign policy?

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement issued by the Japanese Foreign Office disapproving of foreign loans and other foreign assistance to China; and what steps he proposes to take with regard to this matter?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement regarding the recent declaration by
the Japanese Foreign Office regarding affairs in China?

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Japanese Government has issued a notification that Japan will in future view with displeasure the employment of foreign advisers to the Chinese Government; and whether, in view of the fact that British advisers have helped materially to build up modern China and are still helping, he will define the attitude of the British Government towards a claim of this nature?

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any statement on the verbal declaration by the Japanese Government as to the relations of foreign countries with China?

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the declarations by Japan in connection with the relations between China and other countries?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in communication with the Government of the United States of America to secure concerted action in connection with the Japanese declaration concerning China and the Far East?

Sir J. SIMON: I have received no such notification from the Japanese Government as is referred to by my hon. Friend. I have, however, received from His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo the text of what is described as a translation of an informal verbal statement made to the Japanese Press by a spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I will circulate the text in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The statement appears to be inspired by an apprehension of certain dangers to peace, to good relations between China and Japan, or to the integrity of China which might follow from certain action by other Powers in China. None of these dangers is to be apprehended from any policy of His Majesty's Government, which aims in fact at avoiding them. On the other hand, the general character of the statement and certain details in it such as the reference to technical and financial assistance to China are of a
nature that has made me think it necessary to communicate with the Japanese Government with the object of clarifying the position of His Majesty's Government.

Sir C. CAYZER: Will my right hon. Friend ascertain the views of the other signatories to the Nine-Power Treaty?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to Question No. 19?

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: In view of the interest in this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be in a position to make a further statement before long, particularly having regard to the statement reported in to-day's Press of a declaration by the Japanese Ambassador in Washington? Further, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to communicate with the United States Government on this subject?

Sir J. SIMON: I apologise to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) for not having included his question. What I have stated to the House represents what has happened up to the present, and I think it wiser to await the result of the communication which I have made before making a further statement. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that a further statement may probably be desirable.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it that no action will be taken by His Majesty's Government in this matter without previous consultation with the United States?

Sir J. SIMON: The House will be kept fully informed of everything that takes place.

Sir A. KNOX: Would it not foe far better to make direct friendly representations to Japan rather than through Washington?

Sir C. CAYZER: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to consult the signatories of the Nine-Power Treaty?

Sir J. SIMON: I have already said that not think there is any further statement I can make to-day. The action I have announced is a friendly communication
to the Japanese Government, and I think the House will probably agree that that is the right course.

Following is the text:
Owing to special position of Japan in her relations with China her views and attitude respecting matters that concern China may not agree in every point with those of foreign nations; but it must be realised that Japan is called upon to exert the utmost effort in carrying out her mission and in fulfilling her special responsibilities in East Asia. Japan has been compelled to withdraw from the League of Nations because of their failure to agree in their opinions on fundamental principles of preserving peace in East Asia. Although Japan's attitude towards China may at times differ from that of foreign countries such difference cannot be evaded owing to Japan's position and mission.
It goes without saying that Japan at all times is endeavouring to maintain and promote her friendly relations with foreign nations, but at the same time we consider it only natural that to keep peace and order in East Asia we must even act alone on our own responsibility and it is our duty to perform it. At the same time there is no country but China which is in a position to share with Japan the responsibility for maintenance of peace in East Asia.
Accordingly, unification of China, preservation of her territorial integrity as well as restoration of order in that country are most ardently desired by Japan. History shows these can be attained through no other means than awakening and voluntry efforts of China herself.
We oppose, therefore, any attempt on the part of China to avail herself of the influence of any other country in order to resist Japan; we also oppose any action taken by China calculated to play one Power against another. Any joint operations undertaken by foreign Powers even in the name of technical or financial assistance at this particular moment after Manchurian and Shanghai incidents are bound to acquire political significance. Undertakings of such nature if carried through to the end must give rise to complications that might eventually necessitate discussion of problems like division of China which would be the greatest possible misfortune for China and at the same time would have most serious repercussion upon Japan and East Asia.
Japan therefore must object to such undertakings as a matter of principle, although she will not find it necessary to interfere with any foreign country negotiating individually with China on questions of finance or trade as long as such negotiations benefit China and are not detrimental to peace in East Asia.
However, supplying China with war aeroplanes, building aerodromes in China and detailing military instructors or military advisers to China or contracting a
loan to provide funds for political uses would obviously tend to alienate friendly relations between Japan, China and other countries and to disturb peace and order in Eastern Asia. Japan will oppose such projects.
Foregoing attitude of Japan should be clear from policies she has pursued in the past, but on account of the fact that positive movements for joint action in China by foreign Powers under one pretext or another are reported to be on foot it was deemed not inappropriate to reiterate her policy at this time.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA AND TURKEY.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement as to the forthcoming arrangements for the impending meeting of the rulers of Persia and Turkey?

Sir J. SIMON: Reports have reached His Majesty's Government that His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia may pay an official visit to the President of the Turkish Republic in the course of the summer. The matter is one which falls entirely within the sphere of the two foreign countries concerned and does not concern His Majesty's Government in any way.

Sir A. WILSON: Can my right hon. Friend say anything which will tend to discourage the publication in this country of statements of a misleading and derogatory character regarding the rulers of these two countries?

Sir J. SIMON: I deplore no less than my hon. and gallant Friend the appearance of such references to the heads of foreign States with whom His Majesty's Government are on terms of cordial friendship and under whose able leadership those countries have made remarkable progress; but, as he is aware, His Majesty's Government are not in a position to take any action in such cases, and public opinion will no doubt know what value to attach to such references as those to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHREIN OIL CONCESSION.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British interests were consulted before the oil concession in the Bahrein Islands was permitted to be acquired by an
American company; and why, in view of the special relationships which exist between His Majesty's Government and the Government of those islands, no steps were taken to obtain such concession for this country?

Sir J. SIMON: The Bahrein oil concession was originally acquired by a British syndicate, and was subsequently transferred to United States interests by them. The British syndicate who first acquired the concession have stated that before they transferred it to United States interests they endeavoured unsuccessfully to attract possible British concessionnaires.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANCHURIA.

Sir A. KNOX: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information regarding the projected recognition by the United States of America of the State of Manchukuo?

Sir J. SIMON: I have no information that the United States Government are contemplating any such step; and the rumour has, I understand, been officially denied at Washington.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BUILDINGS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now say what is the total expenditure in sterling already incurred in the erection of the new League of Nations buildings at Geneva; what proportion of this amount has been provided by Great Britain; what is the estimated sum required to complete the buildings; whether the foundation stone of the buildings has been removed from the position in which it was originally laid; and where is it now placed?

Sir J. SIMON: The total expenditure incurred up to the 31st March, 1934, in the erection of the new League of Nations buildings at Geneva is 11,228,736 Swiss francs, of which the share of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is approximately 10 per cent. The estimated sum required to complete the buildings is 14,348,415 Swiss francs. Of this sum I am informed that the League had in hand at the end of March last approximately 7,418,000 francs and that it expects to receive a further sum of 4,000,000 francs representing the guaranteed
sale price of the buildings at present occupied by the Secretariat. Therefore, approximately 3,000,000 francs will be needed to complete the funds necessary to cover the whole cost of the buildings. My hon. Friend will understand that since the payments have been made during a period in which considerable exchange fluctuations have occurred, it is impracticable to convert the above amounts into sterling. I would add that this expenditure refers to the new Secretariat building and to the assembly hall block. No account has been taken of the new library, of which the cost of construction is met out of the Rockefeller grant of two million dollars, and therefore represents no charge upon League funds. As regards the last two parts of the question, I am informed that the foundation stone has been for some time in its permanent position in the sub-structure of the building, where it is now visible and will remain so.

Sir W. DAVISON: Do I understand, then, that the foundation stone was not removed from the original place where it was said to be well and truly laid?

Sir J. SIMON: If my hon. Friend will give me the pleasure of his company when next I go to Geneva, I will point it out to him.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: What proportion of the contracts were placed in this country?

Sir J. SIMON: I am afraid that that is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (FOREIGN MILITARY OFFICERS).

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has information as to the number and nationalities of foreign military officers at present in the employ of the Republic of China?

Sir J. SIMON: No British military officers are in the employ of the Chinese Republic. Two British naval officers serve as instructors under the Chinese Ministry of Marine. No information is available regarding the number or nationalities of military officers of other countries now in Chinese employ.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

PIGS (TRANSHIPMENT).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that a large consignment of pigs from Sweden to Canada are going to be transhipped within the port of London; and whether steps will be taken to prevent any contravention of the Diseases of Animals Act, which prohibits the bringing of live pigs and other animals to this country from the Continent of Europe?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has provisionally agreed to authorise this transhipment under conditions prescribed by him and no contravention of the Diseases of Animals Acts will be involved.

VEGETABLE PRODUCTION.

Dr. HOWITT: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is able to make an estimate of the increase in production of vegetable produce in Great Britain since 1931; the numbers employed in that industry in 1933 compared with those in 1931; and the amount of wages paid in those two years?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The returns received from occupiers of one acre and over in 1933 showed as compared with 1931 that the area under vegetable crops increased by 14,125 acres to 197,970 acres in England and Wales. It is well known that there has been in addition substantially increased glasshouse production, but I regret that I am not able to give any estimate of this or of the extent to which employment and wages have been affected.

IRISH LIVESTOCK (SMUGGLING).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many cases of smuggling livestock over the border between the Irish Free State and Ulster have been detected by revenue officers since the imposition of special duties on Irish produce entering Great Britain?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I regret that it would not be in the public interest to furnish this information.

EGGS (IMPORTS).

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of eggs from foreign countries increased from 2,362,000 great hundreds in the first three months of 1932 to 2,869,000 great hundreds in the first three months of the present year, while the imports from Empire countries decreased from 1,276,000 great hundreds to 1,115,000 great hundreds; and what steps he proposes to take to protect the home and Empire poultry-farming industries, in addition to the limitation of imports from and after 15th March?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Between 1930 and 1933, imports of eggs from foreign countries decreased by 40 per cent. while the home production has shown a considerable increase. There was, however, an increase in imports from foreign countries in the first quarter of this year as compared with the same quarter of last year, which was due to the larger imports in January and February. Foreign Governments and the Government of the Irish Free State were therefore asked to limit their exports to this market as from 15th March. The question of further steps to regulate imports will be considered in the light of the Report of the Reorganisation Commission.

Determinations by the West Riding Public Assistance Authority on applications for transitional payments submitted during the under mentioned periods.

Period.
Total number of determinations.
Allowed at maximum benefit rates
Allowed at lower rates.
Needs of applicants held not to justify payment.




Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.


12th November, 1931–23rd January, 1932.*
79,446
64.5
23.6
11.9


25th January, 1932–3rd March, 1934:






Initial applications
75,044
62.9
21.6
15.5


Renewals and revisions.
543,451
64.8
30.1
5.1


* The figures for this period include renewals and revisions as well as initial applications; separate statistics for initial applications are not available.

Mr. MACLAY: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give a rough estimate of what the cost would have been during 1933 if those persons in employment who were compelled under the

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE (TOLL CALLS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 25.
asked the Postmaster-General what should be the average time of an ordinary toll call emanating from London?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The average time taken to obtain an ordinary toll call from London is, according to the latest available returns, 68 seconds [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"], including the time taken by the wanted subscriber to answer the telephone.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. T. SMITH: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims for transitional benefit considered by the public assistance committee of the West Riding County Council from November, 1931, to the latest available date, giving the percentage of awards of full benefit, reduced benefit, and nil determinations.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

needs test to contribute towards the family income had been allowed to retain a minimum of 25s. per week for their own uses?

Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid that there are no statistics on which such an estimate can be based.

Mr. MACLAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the question raised here causes a great deal of bitterness among the families affected, and does he not think it is worth some effort to get an estimate of what this relief would cost?

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member will be aware that to meet this position we are making special provision in the Unemployment Bill now before Parliament.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present practice is breaking up families in many parts of the country?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir, I could not possibly accept the accuracy of that statement.

INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (REDUCTION).

Mr. MALLALIEU: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour what would be the cost to the Insurance Fund of reducing the contributions of the employers, the workmen, and the State, respectively, to the amounts payable before 1931?

Mr. HUDSON: With the present rate of unemployment the cost to the Unemployment Fund of reducing the rates of contributions to these payable before October, 1931, would be approximately £16,000,000 made up as follows: Employers £4,250,000, employed persons £6,425,000, Exchequer £5,325,000.

EXCHANGE VACANCIES.

Mr. JOEL: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that the claims of men who have long been on the registers of different Employment Exchanges are not overlooked when work presents itself; and whether, in view of the disappointment felt by such men at long periods of inactivity, he will suggest to local exchanges that whenever possible notice of vacancies should be given to them?

Mr. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that when vacancies are notified to the Employment Exchanges the claims of men who have been long on the registers are not overlooked. It is the practice of the exchanges to submit those applicants who best satisfy the employer's requirements, irrespective of the
period during which they may individually have been unemployed.

Mr. LUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient energy is displayed by his Department in finding employment for those who are registered?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir, I think the fact that the number of persons placed in employment through the exchanges has risen even in a year of heavy unemployment like 1933 is proof of the active steps taken by the officials of the staff.

DISTRESSED AREAS.

Mr. DAGGAR: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government have under discussion any proposals dealing specifically with the condition of the distressed areas?

Mr. HUDSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on Thursday last in reply to questions by the hon. Members for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson) and Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall).

Mr. DAGGAR: May I ask whether the Government expect to receive any information as the result of this investigation which is not already known to them?

SEASONAL WORK, JERSEY.

Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. THORNE): 29.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the number of men from England who are going to be sent to Jersey for the potato and tomato season; whether proper living accommodation will be provided; the number of hours worked per day and the rate of wages; and if the cost of the fares both ways is to be a charge on the Unemployment Fund?

Mr. HUDSON: It is hoped that there will be work for about 2,600 men in Jersey this year on the potato and tomato crop. They will be suitably accommodated on the farms free of charge. The wages paid are generally on a piece work basis and I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the rates fixed for this year by the Jersey Farmers' Union. The hours of work are usually from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. with breaks for meals amounting to about two hours. The fares to and from Jersey are paid by the Jersey Farmers Union. I am sending the hon. Member copies of explanatory
leaflets on the subject and of an article from the Ministry of Labour Gazette describing the arrangements which were made last year.

Following is the statement:

Rate of Wages.—The rates fixed for this year by the Jersey Farmers' Union for digging, picking and sorting of potatoes for export or for seed are:

(i) Potato Crop-Piece-work:


Per vergee.



£
s.
d.


Digging, picking and sorting
3
5
0


Digging only
1
7
0


Digging and picking only
2
7
0


Digging and sorting only
2
7
0


Picking and sorting only
1
18
0


Loading of barrels (where required)
0
4
0

Amounts earned will be paid to the ganger, and in a gang, composed of digger, picker and sorter, it is suggested that the amounts should be divided in the following proportions:


Per vergee.



£
s.
d.


Fork
1
7
0


Picker
0
19
0


Sorter
0
19
0

(Note.—Comparisons of measurement:—

One English acre equals 2¼ vergees equals 90 Jersey perches equals 160 English perches.

One vergee equals 40 Jersey perches equals 71 (approximately) English perches.

One Jersey perch equals 576 Jersey square feet equals 484 English square feet.

The English perch is 5½ English yards square; the Jersey perch is 7⅓ (approximately) English yards equare.)

(ii) Hay Crop—Piece-work.

Mowing hay, 12s. 6d. per vergee, minimum rate. Higher rates, according to condition of the hay, may be paid by agreement between the farmer and worker.

Bundling hay, 1s. 3d. per 100 bundles. The hay crop averages about 1½ tons per vergee. It is made up into bundles of about 6 lbs. each and stored in lofts.

(iii) Tomato Crop—Piece-work:


Per 1,000.



£
s.
d.


Staking, tying, trimming and weeding (1st crop)
1
10
0


Staking, tying, trimming and weeding (2nd crop)
1
5
0


Tying and trimming only
1
0
0

(iv) Day-work:

There may be limited opportunities of employment on general farm work at day-work rates for labourers with general farm experience. The following rates apply during the potato season only:


Per day.



£
s.
d.


Men (over 18 years)
0
7
6


Women
0
5
6


Youths (under 18 years)
0
5
6

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. THORNE): 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons for his refusal to see the deputation from the delegates from Liverpool and other distressed areas in connection with the 40 per cent. relief contemplated by the Unemployment Bill; and if he can now state whether 1st July is to be the appointed day?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My right hon. Friend received a deputation representing the distressed areas on the 7th December last, after the Unemployment Bill had received Second Heading. He also gave very full consideration to further representations which were made to him on their behalf before he announced, on the 27th February during the Debate, in Committee on Clause 44 of the Bill, that the special grant to distressed areas would be continued until Part II of the Bill came into operation. In these circumstances it did not seem to him that any useful purpose would be served by receiving a further deputation. No statement can yet be made as regards the appointed days under the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — YEMEN (TREATY).

Captain CAZALET: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can tell the House the result of the visit of the resident at Aden to the Imam at Yemen; and whether any new treaty is contemplated between this country and the Yemen?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Knight) on the 26th of February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

ELEPHANTS (DEPREDATIONS).

Mr. BANFIELD: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will have inquiry made of the Governor of Kenya Colony as to whether African
cultivators are granted compensation from the revenues of the game department or from other public funds for the devastation caused to native cultivation in South Kavirondo and elsewhere by elephants; and, if this is not done, whether he will recommend that compensation shall, in future, be made for such damage?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: So far as I am aware, no compensation is payable in such cases, but provision exists in the Game Law whereby natives may obtain permission to kill any wild animals causing damage to their lands or crops. I will communicate the hon. Member's suggestion to the Governor.

SECRETARY OF STATE'S VISIT.

Mr. T. SMITH: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far he met representatives of the different communities in Kenya Colony during his recent visit; and, in particular, whether he met representatives of such important tribal groups as the Kikuyu and Kavirondo?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I greatly regret that owing to my illness I was forced to abandon the programme which had been arranged to include meetings with representatives of both tribes.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME OFFICE SCHOOLS.

Sir A. WILSON: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any report on the work of Home Office schools has been issued since 1928; and, if not, whether, in view of the excellent work of these institutions and the important changes recently introduced, he will present to Parliament a further illustrated report on the work of the children's branch of the Home Office?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): No, Sir; but I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind, and a report on the work of the children's branch will be prepared as soon as circumstances permit.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES (NEWSPAPER REPORTS).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 44.
asked the Home Secretary if he will take steps to obtain powers to control the publication by
newspapers of personal matter in connection with Metropolitan police magistrates other than that normally connected with their official duties?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of any need for legislation of the kind suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMAMENTS (PRIVATE MANUFACTURE).

Mr. BERNAYS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the problem of the private manufacture of armaments?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As I pointed out in answer to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) on 17th April, this question cannot be dealt with by the domestic legislation of one country alone, but would involve similar legislation passed and strictly applied also in other countries where armament factories exist. I would also refer in this connection to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central on 18th April, in which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained to the House a widespread source of misapprehension on this subject. I can see no useful purpose that would be served by the appointment of such a Commission at the present moment.

Mr. BERNAYS: While thanking the Prime Minister for his answer, is he aware of the intense feeling there is in the country on this question of the private manufacture of armaments, and can he say that the Government are still pressing with all their power for an international agreement on the subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, we are still active in that direction and I would like it if the intense feeling to which the hon. Member referred were supplemented by intense thinking.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of any countries which are at present considering domestic legislation of this character?

The PRIME MINISTER: I know of none, but I will give the hon. and gallant Gentleman a more definite answer if he will put a question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR STRENGTH.

Sir C. CAYZER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the outcome of the recent disarmament conversations, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to bring the Royal Air Force up to a one-Power standard?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am unable at present to add anything to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen East (Mr. Boothby) on 9th April.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision, and raise a loan for the purpose of giving us the right position in the air?

The PRIME MINISTER: Raising a loan does not represent all the difficulties that are involved in doing that.

Mr. WHITESIDE: If a substantial reduction in the air forces of other nations does not take place before the House rises for the Summer Recess, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that we should immediately build up to parity?

The PRIME MINISTER: I wish we could build up to parity under conditions like that. Parity has to be worked up to. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council stated quite specifically what the determination of the Government was.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY (NEW SHIP).

Sir A. KNOX: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make representations to the Cunard Company to ensure that the furniture in the new ship is of British manufacture?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I understand that it is the aim and desire of the Cunard Company to see that as much as possible of the equipment and material used in the construction of the ship are of British origin, and that the company have made a communication to that effect to representatives of the trade concerned.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman make the suggestion to the Cunard Company that they
should communicate with the Imperial Institute in order to get the decorative woods to put in this ship?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will most certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Captain CAZALET: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the annual payment due to the United States of America from this country if our Debt was settled on the same basis as that of the recent American-Finnish Debt Settlement?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The terms of the recent American-Finnish Debt Settlement have not yet been published, and I am accordingly not in a position to give the figure asked for.

TAXATION (DIRECT AND INDIRECT).

Mr. TINKER: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will give the percentage of direct and indirect taxation that will obtain when the reduction of 6d. on the Income Tax becomes effective?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If the proposals in the Budget become law, the percentages of the estimated tax revenue in the current year are: from direct taxation, 58.8; from indirect taxation, 41.2.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (BOTTLE PARTIES).

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the decisions of the divisional court in relation to events described as bottle parties; and whether Entertainments Duty is collected in respect of such events?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I assume that my hon. and learned Friend has in mind the recent decisions in the cases of Mizen versus Old Florida, Limited and Egan versus Mizen. I may explain that under the law, Entertainments Duty is chargeable only on payments for admission to an entertainment as a spectator or member of an audience and that, consequently, on the facts as stated in the cases mentioned, the question of liability to Entertainments Duty does not appear to arise.

Mr. KNIGHT: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman to make further inquiry and ascertain whether any charge is made for admission to the places at which an entertainment is presented; will he further consider the hardship caused by the avoidance of the duty by these persons, and the burden put upon struggling amateur dramatic societies?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will certainly consider my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion. I would point out, however, that his supplementary question is merely a re-submission of his earlier question, and that his opinion is over-ruled by a higher authority.

Mr. KNIGHT: Would my hon. Friend inquire further and ascertain whether a charge was made for admission?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (PEDAL CYCLES).

Sir W. BRASS: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the high percentage of fatal accidents due to pedal bicycles on the roads and the fact that his Department has no knowledge of the approximate number of bicyclists using the roads annually, he will consider introducing legislation to make it compulsory for all bicycles used to be registered each year in the future, in order that the statistics of accidents published by his Department may give a clearer picture of the causes of road accidents?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The fatal accidents in which riders of pedal bicycles were involved in 1933 are fully analysed in the recent returns. I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal to impose upon several millions of cyclists the necessity of an annual registration of their machines would afford any material assistance in the ascertainment of the causes of road accidents, and I do not, therefore, contemplate the legislation for which he asks.

Sir W. BRASS: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that more than 1,000 people were killed last year as the result of accidents involving bicycles, and is it not a bad thing for his Department not to
know whether there are 1,000,000 bicycles on the road or 10,000,000?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: We do know approximately the number of bicycles, but we do not think that the registration of bicycles would confer security on their riders.

Sir W. BRASS: I asked a question the other day, and I would like to know why I was not given a figure; his Department then said that they did not know the number of bicycles on the road?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: We do not know the actual number, but we do know, more or less, what is unofficially estimated to be the number.

Sir W. BRASS: I asked for the approximate number.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The approximate number is said to be something like 10,000,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE).

Mr. MORGAN JONES (for Mr. D. GRENFELL): 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the recommendation of the Joint Committee on East Africa that the nominated representation of native opinion on the Legislative Council be increased without prejudice to the power of the Governor at his discretion to nominate persons of African descent whom he considers suitable, whether the appointment of Mr. Hemsted is to be followed by further nominations?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The appointment of Mr. Hemsted is in accordance with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee that the nominated representation of natives should be increased. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to Mr. Hemsted for undertaking this duty, an appreciation which will I know be shared by all Members who know him and his record of service.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (SINGAPORE BASE).

Sir GIFFORD FOX (for Mr. DIXEY): 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet reached a final conclusion with respect to the question of the Singapore base?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty to a question on the 6th December, 1933, and to the White Paper (Cmd. 4523) explanatory of the Naval Estimates, 1934. I can add nothing to these statements, which appear to answer my hon. Friend's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEATHER WORKER'S DEATH, BERMONDSEY.

Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. THORNE): 49.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from the factory inspector in connection with the death of a leather finisher which occurred at his place of employment in Abbey Street, Bermondsey; whether the firm in question were warned by the factory inspector that the machinery in question was inadequately protected; and if he has received a report from the coroner about the matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have received a report from the factory inspector, and am considering what action should be taken. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the negative.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BILL

Considered in Committee [12th Allotted Day].

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions in the event of postponement of coming into operation of Part I.)

(1) If this Part of this Act is not in operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the following provisions shall have effect—

(a) Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Unemployment Insurance (Expiring Enactments) Act, 1933, shall have effect as if for the reference therein to the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, there were substituted a reference to the date on which this Part of this Act comes into operation; and
(b) Section eighteen of this Act shall come into operation on the said first day of July, and the repeal by this Act of so much of Section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, as ceases to have effect by virtue of that Section and of paragraph (4) of Article eight of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, shall have effect as from that date.

(2) This Section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.—[Sir H. Betterton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Sir Henry Betterton.

3.23 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: On a point of Order. May I ask if this proposed new Clause, which is a Government Clause, will take up time allocated under the Guillotine Resolution; or shall we be entitled to extra time in compensation for the fact that the Government are taking up the time of the Committee and thereby cutting out opportunities for private Members?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that this Clause, like all the new Clauses, must come within the time allotted by the time-table for the discussion of new Clauses.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Would it not be as well, Captain Bourne, if you could state to us what is in the mind of the Chair with regard to the calling of Amendments?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that perhaps I had better not anticipate the new Clauses, about one or two of which I am in considerable doubt. I think I had better wait until we reach them, and see how the earlier discussion may affect them.

3.25 p.m.

The Minister of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think I shall be able to make clear in a very few sentences the purpose of this Clause, and the reason why it was necessary to put it down. The Clause is necessary in order to make certain what has been, of course, the intention of the Government all the time, namely, that transitional payments shall continue without interruption until the Bill becomes law and the board which is to be set up under Part II comes into operation. Otherwise there would be a hiatus, with consequences which I am sure none of us would wish to contemplate. Under the existing law, transitional payments to persons who have not the 30-stamp qualification, as well as a good many other provisions of the insurance scheme, come to an end on the 30th June this year. The Committee will remember that there is in the Bill a carrying-over Clause, namely, Clause 28; but that Clause, of course, does not come into operation until the provisions of the Bill itself come into operation, one month after the passing of the Act. When the Bill was originally drafted, I had contemplated that there would be ample time after it received the Royal Assent to allow for that period of one month, in which case Clause 28 would have come into effect; but now it seems likely—indeed, almost certain—that the Bill will not receive the Royal Assent one month before the 30th June, and, therefore, it is necessary to have this new Clause, which is a mere carrying-over Clause to secure that the transitional payments and the other provisions which normally will come to an end on the 30th June this year shall continue in operation until one month after the Bill becomes law.

3.28 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: This is only one more of the numerous illustrations that we have had of the Government's uncertainty as to their intentions and as to the time when the Bill is to be
on the Statute Book. The right hon. Gentleman has wasted some time, which under the Guillotine Resolution ought to have belonged to the House, through having changed his mind after the introduction of the Bill, and has now come to the conclusion that, although he contemplated that there would be ample time between the Bill receiving the Royal Assent and the beginning of July, that is unlikely to be the case. For that circumstance Members on this side of the Committee are not responsible; the responsibility lies with His Majesty's Government. I do not want to use too hard words, but this is another illustration of the very clumsy way in which the Bill has been handled. Under the Guillotine Resolution the time ought to have belonged to the House with the minimum of intervention through the Government changing their mind day by day, but we are now faced with having to spend time, on this last but three of the days allotted for the Committee stage, because it is found necessary to introduce a carrying-over Clause. I think the Committee, if it looks at this from a business point of view, must regard the necessity for the Clause as deplorable and must feel with me that it is very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman did not think a little more about the Bill before he introduced it.
The Clause deals with the time when a certain part of the Act will begin to operate. It is suggested now that it should come into operation on 1st July. I cannot quite dissociate this Clause from the next. It is unfortunate, notwithstanding certain technical difficulties which I know exist, that the date when the Act comes into operation, with the provisions as to the restoration of the scales of benefit, should not be approximately the same as that upon which the Income Tax payer begins to enjoy the advantages of the reduction of the Income Tax. While the Income Tax payer begins to enjoy his remission of 6d. from the beginning of the financial year, the unemployed workers will have to wait until 1st July. We cannot move an Amendment to make 1st April the date of coming into operation of the Act instead of 1st July. That is a matter that lies entirely in the hands of the Government. But it seems to us that it was necessary to raise this point and that, as an act of simple justice, if Income
Tax payers are to enjoy relief as from practically the beginning of April, steps ought to have been taken to see that those who are to get the restoration of their cuts enjoy it from the same date.
We are not opposing the Clause, but we feel bound to point out that there is an element of injustice in allowing the Income Tax payer his relief three months earlier than it is going to be allowed to the unemployed. I am satisfied that hon. Members who may not agree with us in our general attitude on the Bill will agree that, as a matter of common justice, it would have been fairer to the unemployed, who do not and in the circumstances cannot pay Income Tax, that the restoration of the cut should date from approximately the time when the Income Tax payer gets back his beloved 6d.

3.36 p.m.

Mr. JAMES REID: There is one definite point on which I should like to ask for some explanation. It relates to the coming into operation of Clause 18, which deals with the debt. Under the Clause there is provision for the payment of annual instalments amounting to £5,500,000. Assuming that that is the figure that will remain in the Bill when it gets on the Statute Book, that would become the rate of repayment of the debt as from 1st July. But at present the fund is piling up a surplus, we are told, at the rate of £16,000,000 a year over and above the present provision for interest on the debt. What is to become of that £16,000,000 per annum between 1st July, when the Clause comes into operation, and the earliest date on which the Committee will have to apply their minds to its disposal? The general provisions of the Act will not come into operation as soon as 1st July. After they have come into operation the Committee must be set up, and then it must consider what it is going to do. It must, under Clause 17, give notice of its intention to report, and the Minister has two months to consider the report before it can receive effect through a Resolution of the House.
Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that we shall be in a position, at any rate before Christmas, possibly not before next February, to decide what is to be done with the surplus that is gradually piling up. It will not continue to pile
up at the rate of £16,000,000 after the Bill becomes operative, because there will be the sums which have to be paid for extending benefit from 156 days to the whole year in certain cases, but it may very well be that £6,000,000 or £8,000,000 will be piled up between 1st July and the date at which any recommendation of the Committee can become effective. I should much welcome an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that repayment to the Exchequer will not take place at any greater rate than the instalments in the Bill after 1st July. That would seem to be in accord with the intention of the new Clause.
I raised the point in Committee on Clause 17. It was just before the Guillotine fell and there was a certain amount of interruption and the Chancellor was unable to make as full a statement as he obviously intended to make, but he said that some alteration would have to be made in the provisions of the Bill with regard to paying over to the Exchequer at a greater rate than £5,500,000 a year. If such an alteration is to be made on Report, as far as I can see this surplus piling up has no destination provided for it in the Bill, and it seems to me that the right course would be that it should continue to pile up and be available for the disposal of the Committee when the Committee comes into full working order and is able to apply its mind to that question. When there is £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 to deal with, the Committee would welcome an assurance on the lines I have suggested.
There is nothing inconsistent with the framework of the Bill in piling up a surplus of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 for the disposal of the Committee. I ventured to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the proceedings on Clause 17 whether it would be competent for the Committee to carry over from one year to another, say, £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, and the answer which he gave, as reported in column 1,654 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 12th February, was that that would be a matter for the Committee to consider. Therefore, there is nothing inconsistent with the principle of this Bill in a sum of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 being piled up as a sort of reserve fund. It is true that a reserve fund under that
name is not provided for in the Bill, but, on the other hand, the explanation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on that occasion makes it plain that something of the nature of a carry over reserve fund is provided for, or at least is competent within the framework of the Bill.
It seems to me that the sum of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, or however many million pounds it may be, which piles up as a surplus over and above the instalment between the 1st July and the date on which the Committee can first deal with the matter in a practical way, might very well follow the lines which I have suggested and remain there for the Committee to dispose of when they first come to a full detailed consideration of their future procedure under the Bill. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can assure us that that sum of money will be there for the Committee to deal with and will not simply fade away into the hands of the Treasury without anybody being able to question whether that is the correct destination for it or not, some of the doubts in the minds of hon. Members may be removed.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I think that the Debate, short as it has been, will have shown to the Committee already the difficult position in which we are going to be placed in discussing these two Clauses separately. The Minister has introduced this Clause very shortly as though it were a matter dealing with the subject under Clause 28 of the Bill. It is clear, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) pointed out, that what is really involved in this Clause is the reference to 1st July. We have an Amendment down later on to make, as my right hon. Friend also pointed out, the date 1st April instead of 1st July. I do not know whether I am right or not, but I rather gather that it is not going to be possible to discuss that date, and I should like to know. It is rather important that we should have a Ruling upon the matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The position with regard to the hon. Member's Amendment to the next Clause is as follows. If this Clause is agreed to by the Committee and is added to the Bill, we are bound by it. Under paragraph (b)
the date on which a charge can be laid on the Treasury under the Financial Resolution as part of paragraph A, lines 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Financial Resolution, will then be the 1st July. The hon. Member will appreciate that as long as Part III of the Bill is in operation any increase in the way of unemployment benefit will entail a corresponding increase of transitional payment which is a direct charge on the Exchequer. Paragraph A of the Financial Resolution provides for that charge until such period as Part II of the Bill comes into operation, and that charge is only operative as from the moment that Section 5 of the Unemployment Act, 1921, ceases to have effect. If this Clause is carried that date will be 1st July this year. I hope that I have made the position clear.

Mr. LAWSON: Therefore, it will not be possible to move the Amendment?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not if this Clause before the Committee is added to the Bill.

Mr. LAWSON: That is a rather complicated explanation. In the nature of things, it is fortunate for me that I bad an opportunity of getting some understanding of it at any rate earlier on. Let the Committee note where this leads us. If the Clause which was so innocently moved by the Minister of Labour makes the date of this part of the Act come into operation on the 1st July, I should say that it is necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an explanation of the finance in respect of which the date is based. It is very necessary because an hon. Gentleman has already raised the question as to whether it is based upon the assumption that payments in reference to interest do not mean something more than that. I have been wondering, as there is a balance of £16,000,000 in the fund on the present figures, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is assuming that the unemployment figures are to remain at the present total and whether the finance is based upon that state of affairs. Is he assuming that the fall in the figures which occurred last month, and which, fortunately, has been consistent for some months, is to be maintained? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer assuming that the figures are to remain at the present point, or that there is going to
be a fall? The Committee must understand that a fall of 100,000 or a rise of 100,000 means a difference of £4,000,000 a year as far as the fund is concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "£3,000,000!"] Including transitional payments. I had an answer to the effect that £2,800,000 was for benefit alone. That was the figure I received from the Minister of Labour. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer questions those figures, because I have them here in the answer which the Minister gave.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): When I was speaking on the subject some time ago I said that on a drop of 100,000 there would be an additional sum of a little more than £3,000,000 in the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Of course, I was not dealing then at all with anything outside.

Mr. LAWSON: If we take the sum of £3,000,000, it is bound to have some effect upon the fund. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer basing the position upon the present figures becoming static or upon the possibility of a reduction in unemployment? There is a further calculation; out of the £16,000,000 there has been assumed a figure of something like £8,350,000 as the cost of the extra 26 weeks under one of the Sections of the Act, and the calculation is that some of the people who are upon transitional payments will come in. The Committee would like to know how we shall be affected. Are we to launch into a discussion of the finance of this matter on this Clause or on the Clause which follows, regarding the provision of the rates of benefit? I would much rather that the discussion took place on the other Clause. If we pass the present Clause as it is, with the July date, we shall be hindered from discussing later the possibility of making April the date, according to our Amendment. That is one of the difficulties we have been in on this Bill, mainly due to the fact that the Financial Resolution was drawn so tightly that we were precluded from discussing the debt, and now we are in the difficulty of talking either upon this Clause or upon the other Clause. I think there is a case for the Chancellor of the Exchequer making an early statement, so that the Committee will know where it stands.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The point is, when can we discuss whether April should be substituted for July? There would be a general desire to discuss that question, and we all wish to keep within the bounds of order. Can the Deputy-Chairman tell us whether we can discuss that question on the next Clause if we pass the present Clause?

3.52 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The position as I see it is this—if this Clause is agreed to by the Committee it will be impossible to discuss the question, or rather to move on the next Clause an Amendment, that April should be substituted for July. It would not necessarily be out of order to raise the point that April would be a better date, on the Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," as a reason for objecting to the Clause, but it would not be in order to move a specific Amendment to the Clause in order to alter the date to earlier than the 1st July. I hope that is clear.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: We complain that the restoration of the cuts has been put off until the 1st July, and we want to move an earlier date. It seems to us rather strange that this Clause should be moved. If says:
If this Part of this Act is not in operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the following provisions shall have effect.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, during his Budget speech, that the restoration of the cuts would not take place unless the Act was in operation on 1st July. Everybody anticipates that the Unemployment Act will be in operation on the 1st July. Therefore, it appears to me to be totally unnecessary to pass this Clause. In order that we may have a discussion on the question that the restoration of the cuts should take place earlier than the 4th July, would it be in order if I moved to delete paragraph (b) from the Clause? That paragraph says:
Section eighteen of this Act shall come into operation on the said first day of July, and the repeal by this Act of so much of section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, as ceases to have effect by virtue of that section and of paragraph (4) of article eight of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, shall have effect as from that date.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to correct one statement made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), as to what I said in my Budget Speech. I Said nothing about the date on which this part of the Act would come into operation. What I said was that the cuts could not be restored by the 1st July unless the Bill had been passed and had come into law. A Bill may have been passed but not have come into operation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor, he will appreciate that we must read the Clause a Second time before any Amendment can be moved. I should like to consider the point that he has raised, and I will do so after the Clause has been read the Second time, and before it is added to the Bill.

3.56 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I think the Committee would desire some explanation, and it is very simple, why the 1st July was inserted in the Bill and not the 1st April as the date for the restoration of the cuts. The date is not based upon finance but upon the time when the Bill comes into law. The hon. Member asks that the restoration of the cuts should be dealt with retrospectively to the 1st April when the Bill comes into operation on the 1st July. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that it would involve inextricable confusion if we were to try, after the Bill comes into operation, say, on the 1st July, to deal retrospectively with the restoration of the cuts which, ex hypothesi, have accrued since the 1st April. The confusion that would result would make that course impossible. There is another reason, of a different character, and it answers the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). He will remember that when these cuts were imposed in October, 1931, they were not imposed until after the passing of the Economy Act in 1931, but the increase in the Income Tax rate was applied for the year commencing April, 1931, or six months before the cuts operated. We did not hear at that time any protest on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that the increased Income Tax should not come into operation until the Economy Act was in operation. Therefore, from the point of view of whether it is a practical
proposition to carry out the suggestion of hon. Members opposite, I say that it is not, because the confusion would be quite hopeless and, secondly, on its merits there is every reason for the course which we propose.

3.58 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman is unconvincing. We have such a belief in his sincerity and his obvious desire to take the Committee into his confidence that it does come to us as a surprise to find him giving such reasons for not doing what I believe the House wants and the country desires. Where there is a will there is a way, and if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government really desire that immediately after Parliament has decided to restore the cuts the people concerned should get the advantage of it, the Government, with all their skill and with all the legal advice at their disposal, could provide a way of achieving that purpose. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that if the Government desire to put into operation the restoration of the cuts when the time is ripe for them, all they have to do is repeal the Economy Act. I remember how very quickly that Act went through, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman—I have no right to speak for my hon. Friends above the Gangway, but I am going to do so—that if the Government would bring forward a one Clause Bill for that purpose it would receive no opposition in any quarter of the House. We would let him have facilities. We would suspend the 11 o'clock Rule and everything else to let the Bill go through.
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman why we attach so much importance to this matter. The great army of people directly concerned in these cuts have shown exemplary patience. They have been led to understand that they have had to suffer this loss in their income because of the national emergency. In many countries there would have been riots, protest meetings, bitterness and bad blood, but one of the most noticeable things here during the last three years has been the patience with which, on the whole, the inconvenience and hardship of these reduced benefits have been borne. Now that the Chancellor announces, with all the publicity of the Budget, that the financial position of the country is so improved
that it is possible to restore these cuts, the postponement for three months is going to cause a great deal of feeling of hardship and discontent. It seems to me that the wise, the right and proper course is to let these people have the advantage with as little delay as possible. For the Minister to suggest that he is prevented from doing the right thing because of the wording of a Clause in the Unemployment Bill is really begging the question. I am perfectly satisfied that we could help him. At any rate, if 1st April is not possible, because to date back is perhaps always a difficulty, he could select an earlier date than 1st July—it might be 1st May. There is no difficulty about the wording of Acts of Parliament if the Government have the intention to do a particular thing. I, therefore, suggest to the Minister that he has to put up a better case than he has been able to do for resisting what is, I believe, the general desire of the whole House of Commons to restore to this large army of people, without further delay, the original rate, which was only reduced because of the national emergency.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I want to make an appeal to the Minister to give his sincerest consideration to the request to restore the cut, at least at an earlier date than he proposes. Personally, I cannot see that it is very difficult to reckon up so many weeks at 2s. or 3s. a week more, as the case may be. It does not appear to be an insuperable difficulty, but if that is too much to do at least we could possibly talk about 1st May or 1st June. This afternoon a question was asked in the House as to what would be the cost to the Insurance Fund of reducing the contributions of the employers, the employed and the Treasury to the amounts payable before 1931. The answer, if I remember rightly, was something like £16,000,000 per year. I think we were told in the Budget statement that, apart from what would fall on the Unemployment Fund by the restoration of these cuts, that is, the cost of transitional payments, there is to be in this year approximately £4,000,000. So that if the restoration of the cuts were made from 1st April, I take it that the restoration would cost the Treasury on transitional payments something like £1,000,000
to £1,500,000. There would be no charge on the Unemployment Fund which the fund could not afford to bear, simply because we are told that already there is a reserve, which is building up at the rate of £3,000,000 a year.
To give back to the unemployed, therefore, 25 per cent. of the extra contributions imposed in 1931, does not seem to me to be in the same proportion as the Income Tax restoration, and I appeal to the Minister of Labour that the excuse of not being able to reckon so many weeks at 2s. or 3s., as the case may be, will not satisfy what, I think, is a legitimate demand. The fund can bear it; it is quite solvent. A reserve is being built up, and the only thing asked of the Chancellor in making the restoration date from the same time as the Income Tax, is a matter of from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000. I therefore, trust that, if not on this Clause, because I know the difficulty there would be between the other Act going on and this one coming in, the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind before we come to a decision at some stage in the Finance Bill, whether this cannot be done. There is a legitimate grievance on this point, the cost is infinitesimal and it would assist the unemployed greatly. The very fact of increasing the payment shows that the Chancellor recognises the hardships under which the unemployed are suffering, and I, personally, think that there could be this restoration without any difficulty. I hope, therefore, that it will be borne in mind.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I will not detain the Committee very long, because, like many others, I am anxious to get on with other Amendments; but I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. He has really only one answer, which is a fairly good answer from an administrative point of view. The question of whether the Income Tax people have got their reduction a day earlier or a day later does not matter. We are not now considering questions of Income Tax, but a section of very poor people, and whether the Chancellor can give them this concession a few months earlier to ease their lot. That is the issue, and not questions about Income Tax. The issue is whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot make the life of very poor people more pleasant
a little earlier than would otherwise be the case. The only argument of the Minister is that it would be administratively impossible to make the date 1st April, thus antedating the concession and repaying people the amount outstanding. He says, in effect, that the difficulty of the exchanges would be insuperable. I cannot follow him in what is his only case.
The occupants of the Front Bench are becoming every day about the worst set of politicians in this country. I confess that they do certain things—things which do make a certain improvement; but when they do them, it is in the worst possible way. When restoring cuts they do it with tardiness and delay which, to the ordinary man in the street, is unbecoming, and certainly it looks as if they did not want to do it. If I were giving them any political advice—it is almost impossible to give the Prime Minister advice, because he knows everything already—but there are other ordinary human beings in the Cabinet, and from ordinary human, political considerations, they ought to do what they are now asked to do. When you are making a concession, the value of the concession is to make it at once. If you start to delay you lose a great deal of the value of your concession, and I say that, from the point of view of those supporting the Government, with any knowledge of strategy at all, they ought to bring this concession in much earlier.
The question of ante-dating to 1st April might be a little difficult, but if the Government have no greater difficulty that that, I think that with good will and a certain amount of toleration, the thing could be adjusted. Why it cannot be done from next week I cannot understand. Why cannot managers of the local Exchanges start next week and make up their forms accordingly? I can see a little difficulty in ante-dating, which is a good argument administratively, but I cannot sec why there is any difficulty about next; week, once they know that they have to do it. The Government do this thing, and they do it miserably, and appear to the world as miserable creatures. That is the long and short of it. The ordinary man, whether he believes in people on this side or anywhere else, says that if you are going to do it, let the people enjoy
the concession quickly, instead of floundering about in this way. Those who have control of the Exchanges, the divisional officers and Employment Exchange managers, can do it with good will, and the Minister, in his own interest and in the interest of the unemployed, if he fixes the day for next Monday, I am sure will make ail much happier and himself much more humane.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I have gained the impression—I hope that I am right—that the Minister of Labour has been deeply moved by the appeals which have been made to him. I have observed him very carefully, and when my hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties of administration, I noticed that he appeared to be seeking expert advice. I should imagine that if he took the Committee into his confidence, he would be able to tell us that the administrative difficulties could easily be overcome. I further observed that he had consultations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I trust that those consultations were as hopeful as the previous consultations he had. I am convinced that the Minister himself, if he were a free man, would now get up in his place and announce that this concession would be made. I am sure that it would meet the wishes of the whole House. I do not believe that there is a Member of this House, however interested he or she may be in any other particular section of the community, but would gladly see the restoration of this cut to the unemployed at the earliest possible moment.
It may be that the Chancellor, quite naturally, is concerned about creating a precedent as far as other restorations are concerned, but I do not believe that he need fear that. There is no section, as I say, represented in this House, and certainly no section of the cut classes outside, who would grudge for a moment the restoration of the cut, as far as it has gone in the proposals of the Chancellor, at the earliest possible moment, and I would like to join with those who have appealed to him to get rid of the idea that there would be insuperable difficulties for the administration. As a matter of fact, there would be the same difficulties, perhaps not to the same extent, on the 1st of July. These administrative
difficulties will occur then. If the Government decided that the restoration of the cuts to the unemployed should take place at the earliest moment they would not only create a better feeling amongst the unemployed, but every cut section in the community would rejoice that this partial measure of justice had been done to the most unfortunate section of the community.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: To me the reply of the right hon. Gentleman seemed unconvincing. In the first place, he said that it would be difficult to make the restoration of the cuts retrospective. I admit that additional work would be thrown on the officials of the Department, but the records are there, they know perfectly well all the people who have been in receipt of benefit and are entitled to benefit since the 1st of April, and all it means is that on the 1st of July, or whenever it may be, they would get as an additional sum the amount of benefit to be added to the restored pay. My arithmetic is not very good but I think it would mean that a single man would receive on the 1st of July 22s. 9d. in respect of the 13 weeks during which he had been paid the lower scale of benefit when the House had determined that he should receive the higher. If there was sufficient good will on the other side the administrative difficulties of this problem could easily be overcome. The right hon. Gentleman is in a conciliatory mood. Let us follow up the suggestion and make it prospective instead of retrospective. Let us take the glorious 1st of May as the date at which the cuts should be restored, then the restrospective difficulty would disappear.
The second point of the right hon. Gentleman, which he thought so devastating, made no impression on my mind. It was that in October, 1931, the increase in Income Tax was retrospective as from April, whilst the cut in unemployment benefit only operated after the passage of the necessary legislation. In reply to that I say that the increase of 6d. in the Income Tax did not amount to an additional 10 per cent. levy on the incomes of Income Tax payers. A reduction of 10 per cent. in unemployment benefit meant a net 10 per cent. reduction in the receipts going into a working class home. The two cases are not on the same footing. If the Chancellor's view about
graduated taxation is right, then 10 per cent. to the Income Tax payer is an entirely different thing and a much lighter burden than 10 per cent. to people who are below the Income Tax level and who are in receipt of unemployment benefit.
My real object in rising was to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to remain silent on this Clause, which deals with the date at which the Bill is to come into operation. It refers specifically to Clause 18 dealing with Treasury advances to the Unemployment Fund. Now that the Government have got out of the haze and uncertainty in which they have been living ever since they introduced the Bill, at least they have not disclosed the dates they had in mind, and as we have now some definition as to the dates, surely the Committee is entitled to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the financial results of specifying the definite date of the 1st of July instead of the Bill remaining as it stood. This is the third or fourth time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been present and we should hate him to remain a silent member. We hope he will say something on the financial aspects of the Clause. The Committee at least is entitled to know his views as to the financial effects of giving this new precision to the Bill, which was not there when it was introduced.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I am wondering whether the consideration which is uppermost in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the fact that he is making a profit on the unemployed and frankly does not like to give it up until the latest possible date. He said that a reduction of 100,000 in a number of the unemployed meant a saving of something over £3,000,000 to the Exchequer. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be good enough to sneer less and pay a little attention to what is said. He may be an extremely able man, I am not disputing that, but it does not give him the right to sneer at anything which is being said by another Member of the Committee. I feel certain that the people who have been suffering the cuts consider that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not generous, and if this matter were left to a free vote of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman and
The Minister of Labour would find that there are Members on their own side who would desire that the cuts to the unemployed should be restored at, the earliest possible moment.
The reply is that the earliest possible time is the 1st of July. Why? I think it is because it is inconvenient to the Department and to the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour will not say that it is impossible to restore the cuts earlier, neither will the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everybody knows that it is not impossible to restore the cuts, whatever the date, whether it is the 1st of April or the 1st of May. It is perfectly possible. The only question is; is it the desire of the Government to do so? I think it is the desire of the Committee, if they were allowed a free vote; but is it the desire of the Government? To that question we are entitled to have a straight reply. Nobody in their senses will assert that it is impossible to restore the cuts, if the desire is there, and I am certain that the officials of the Department would not begrudge working overtime if it was necessary in the interests of these people. It might mean a few extra men and women being taken on; they would have an opportunity for employment. That would not be a disaster. It would help the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the numbers of the unemployed were reduced by the numbers it would be necessary to take on to make out the cards and books.
I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Labour to give a straight reply; do they desire to restore these cuts or not? That is the whole question. If they do, then let them say so; and if it cannot be done then they should give us some reason, and not treat members of the Committee as though they were children, as though they were so simple that they can be put off with the story that it is impossible to restore the cuts earlier than the 1st of July. Members are not so simple, and people outside the House are not so simple. Nobody with an elementary education would believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister if he says that it is impossible. In that case why not tell the country the real reason? It may be the matter of the £3,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, like everybody else, is anxious to hold on to any money he can get for the purposes of the future, and the amount for three
months would mean 25 per cent. of the £3,000,000. That is a consideration for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I appeal to the Minister to grant some concession to these men and women who are starving. A continuation of that state even for one week makes a big difference, and for one month a much greater difference. For two or three months it may mean life or death. Therefore, I hope that he will make a more satisfactory statement than the one he has made.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. PALING: In 1931 this country was supposed to be in a financial crisis and immediately it was discovered the Government took steps to put into operation the cuts and an increase in Income Tax in order to overcome the situation. These steps were taken as speedily as possible; the cuts were put into operation as early as possible. It was understood that when the financial crisis ended the cuts would be restored and the sacrifices no longer continued. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the financial crisis ended in March of this year, and he now finds the financial position of the country such as to allow him to modify some of the impositions put on in 1931. If that was the financial state of the country on the 1st of April, where on earth is the reason why the unemployed, who are the least able to bear the imposition, should have to suffer for three months longer than the financial state of the country warrants. I wish the Minister would look at it from that point of view.
The Minister of Labour says that it is all very well for us to stress the fact that the unemployed have to go on to till July, although the Income Tax payers get their 6d. from the beginning of April, and he adds that the imposition of the Income Tax in 1931 dated from the beginning of April, and that the Income Tax people have endured that imposition longer than the unemployed endure the cut in benefit. That is true. But surely that is not the measure by which we should judge this business. Although the Income Tax payers may have had the imposition longer than the unemployed have had the cut, the fact remains that the Income Tax payers could stand it and that the imposition of the extra 6d. for three months longer than the imposition
of the cuts on the unemployed did not make a single pennyworth of difference to their standard of living, did not mean that they went short of a single meal, and I doubt whether they paid 6d. less for any meal that they have had in this House. But with the unemployed it was quite a different proposition.
Everyone knows that the position of the unemployed is such, and their standard of life so low, that their physical health is suffering. We have had statements from the Secretary for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty about the appalling number of men who have been rejected for physical reasons when they wished to join the Army or the Navy, and we are hearing almost every day statements of medical officers of health up and down the country that the health of the children is declining, mainly in families where unemployment is rife. If the health of the people, adults and children, is declining because of lack of means, surely it is important to restore those means as soon as possible. Why should these people, who, in many cases, have not enough food to consume, have to wait until the beginning of July when the money is there to be given them if the will to give it were there also? It may be a little difficult to go back to April, but it could be done if the Government wished to do it. Even if there were an insuperable difficulty about going back to April, it would not be nearly so bad if the Government went back to the beginning of May. We would rather go back to April, but would take May rather than nothing. That would still give the unemployed two months' extra money, and I am sure the Minister of Labour would find no difficulty in putting the proposal into operation.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has expressed the distress of mind that he feels at seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting upon the Front Bench and not taking part in the discussion. I would like to relieve him from his inconvenience. Also, of course, I was asked a specific question by an hon. Friend behind me. There seems to be some misapprehension on the benches opposite as to what the effect of this new Clause really is. The right hon. Member for Wakefield repeatedly asked
me to make a statement as to how the finance would be affected by the operation of the particular Clause. It does not affect the finance in any way, except of course, that it makes provision that transitional payments which otherwise would expire on 30th June will go on until other arrangements take their place.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Clause operates in July.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: But if Part I has not come into operation on 1st July, then this provides for a continuance of the present payment of transitional payments.

Mr. GREENWOOD: How about Clause 18 of the Bill, and the question of coming into operation of those payments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall come to that point in a minute. First let me deal with what was said by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee). He seemed to be annoyed because I was surprised at his statement that every 100,000 reduction in the number of unemployed means £3,000,000 in the pockets of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making a profit out of the unemployed, and said that I wanted to hold on to the money as long as I could. He said twice that every time there was a reduction of 100,000 in the number of the unemployed it meant £3,000,000 for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If that really be the impression of the hon. Member surely it must be unique, because I think that everyone else in the Committee knows that it is the fund which benefits by the £3,000,000 and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. BATEY: Would the Chancellor not benefit because of the transitional payments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for West Walthamstow was not talking about transitional payments. He was accusing me of making a profit out of the unemployed by trying to hold on to £3,000,000, which he said would come to me by a reduction of 100,000 in the number of unemployed. Hon. Members are so evasive. The right hon. Member
for Wakefield accused us of injustice because he said we were treating the Income Tax payers better than the unemployed. When he was answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who pointed out that the Income Tax payers began to pay the higher tax sooner than the unemployed received their cuts, hon. Members turned round and said that that was not the point at all, that the position of the unemployed was much harder than that of the Income Tax people. Hon. Members opposite can argue it one way or the other, but they cannot argue it both ways at the same time. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to press the point about injustice he must meet the point of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
Let me turn to the question which was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. J. Reid), who wanted to know about the repayment of the debt on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. He inquired whether we were going to repay the debt and thereby to cut into the surplus which might be available to the Statutory Committee when it comes into existence. The answer is quite simple and plain. We have to go on repaying, or paying interest, until the 1st July. There will be some small repayments, I understand, in May, but as it happens there is nothing due in June. There will be no payment in June, and after 1st July there will be no more repayments except those provided under Clause 18.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: If I move to leave out paragraph (b) of the new Clause, would it be in order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would not be out of order in moving that Amendment, but I ought to point out that the only effect of the Amendment would be to postpone the date on which the increase of pay would go to the unemployed.

Mr. BATEY: Every Member of the Committee would like to be able to debate the point if possible. It is all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour to put us in a difficulty. They are entitled
to laugh up their sleeves because they have linked the restoration of the cuts with the coming into force of this Bill. Some of us want to put off the coming into force of the Bill as long as possible, but on the other hand we want the restoration of cuts as quickly as we can get it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. If an Amendment to delete paragraph (b) were carried, it would have the effect of postponing the restoration of the cuts until the Bill comes into operation.

Mr. BATEY: The matter is so important that even at the risk of being misunderstood I would like to move to delete paragraph (b) in order to have a Debate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the exact point which the hon. Member wishes to debate is the one which would not be in order if the Amendment were moved. The effect of the Amendment, as I have said, would be to postpone the restoration of the cuts until after 1st July. As that would be the effect, I could not allow hon. Members to argue that the cuts should be restored before 1st July. In other words, I could not allow them to debate the exact contrary of what the Amendment would bring about.

Mr. LAWSON: Would not that Amendment also postpone the effect of Clause 18 of the Bill and give the Committee an opportunity of debating the matter?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would undoubtedly have that effect. The effect of leaving out paragraph (b) would be to postpone any possible payment until a much later date than 1st July, even to the Greek Kalends, as he himself desires with regard to the other provisions of the Bill.

Mr. BATEY: Would it be possible to alter 1st July to 1st May? Would an Amendment to that effect be in order?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: An Amendment in line 1 of the new Clause to substitute "May" for "July" would be in order.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in
line 1, to leave out "July" and to insert "May."
What we want is a restoration of the cuts as early as possible. We can see no justification for postponing the restoration until 1st July. In his Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave much prominence to the fact that the cuts were to be restored. That statement was received with pleasure. If there was any regret about it, the regret was that the restoration was not to take place until 1st July. I see no reason why the restoration should have been linked with this Bill. I consider that the cuts could have been dealt with in a one-Clause Bill, put through this House in one day. This Bill has no more relation to restoration of the cuts than the Budget had. We have been told that the fund is making a profit of £16,000,000 a year. The cost of a full year's restoration of the cuts is only £4,000,000. To say that the restoration shall not start until 1st July means that, although there was a balance in the fund in the year ending 31st March, the restoration of the cuts will only apply to nine months of the next financial year. There can be no justification for such a proposal when the surplus on the fund amounts in a full year to £16,000,000.
This is a matter of urgency to the unemployed. I can well understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not anxious even to have the restoration taking effect as from 1st May. I can understand that he would prefer 1st July. It is not only a question of the restoration of the outs to those on the Unemployment Fund, but the restoration of the cuts in transitional payments, and the longer it is put off the better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In my opinion, however, as the fund is making such a big balance we ought to leave the transitional payments out of the picture for the moment and concentrate our attention upon the fund. Having regard to the position of the fund, we say that the restoration of these cuts should not be put off a moment longer than is necessary.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has taken the course which he has taken. I intended to say something about the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this new Clause generally. I ask the Committee to note
that what we are being asked to do here by the new Clause is, practically, to give our assent to Clause 18 of the Bill dealing with the question of the debt. That Clause has never been discussed in the ordinary way. One of the great grievances in connection with the Committee stage of the Bill is that there has been no proper discussion of the principle of whether the debt should be charged to the fund, whether the instalments of £2,750,000 half yearly should be paid as laid down in the Clause or whether on the recommendation of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee further moneys should be payable out of the fund towards the discharge of these liabilities in addition to the instalments already mentioned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not dealt with the point of whether this debt should be charged on the fund or not.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Spenny-moor (Mr. Batey) to substitute 1st May for 1st July in paragraph (b) of the proposed new Clause?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. The hon. Member is moving his Amendment in line 1 of the proposed new Clause. That would obviously be an introductory Amendment and, if carried, it would require consequential Amendments to be made later in the Clause.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May we know exactly what the Amendment is?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is to leave out the word "July" in line 1 of the Clause, and to insert the word "May." If the Amendment were carried the first line of the proposed new Clause would read as follows:
If this Part of this Act is not in operation on the first day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the following provisions shall have effect.
In that case, consequential Amendments would be required in paragraphs (a) and (b) in order to bring the other dates into conformity with the Amendment.

Mr. LAWSON: That is material to the point which I was raising. If the Committee will give their attention to this question of the debt and the interest thereon, as I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, I think they will find that the fund could be made
solvent much sooner than seems to be assumed in these proposals and that it should be easily possible to do not only what the hon. Member for Spennymoor wants, but much more. The question is, if we want to have the fund solvent ought we to charge it at the outset with this great debt of £115,000,000? There is a strong opinion which is not confined to the Labour party that if the fund is to have a chance of solvency it ought not to be loaded with that debt and there are strong arguments for that view. In the main, the people who are on the fund or who will come on to the fund are not those who are responsible for incurring that debt.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that we cannot discuss the merits of Clause 18 upon this Amendment. The Amendment only relates to the point of whether the Clause should come into operation on 1st July or on some earlier date.

Mr. LAWSON: I would point out that paragraph (b) of the proposed new Clause contains the words:
section eighteen of this Act shall come into operation on the said first day of July,
My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor wants to make the date 1st May. What I am arguing is that the finances of the fund largely depend upon this debt, upon the interest that has to be paid and the other payments which are set forth in Clause 18. My point is that if the fund were relieved of this debt then it would be possible to—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is just what the hon. Member cannot argue. He would be entitled to argue that the effect of changing the date would be, let us say, to reduce the amount of redemption which is at present going on, or to ask what would be the financial effect of doing so, but he must not argue as to the effect of an amended Clause 18.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Is it not the case that the burden which the fund will have to bear if the Act comes into force is heavier than that which it is now bearing; and therefore the effect of the Amendment would be to date back for two months the imposition of a heavier charge on the fund?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord may be correct as to that. All I am
saying is that we must deal with Clause 18 as it is printed in the Bill and not as it might be amended.

Mr. LAWSON: If I am not in a position to debate the broad aspect of the debt and the interest thereon, and I think that is the general effect of your Ruling, Captain Bourne, I content myself with the statement that if the fund were not charged with the debt and with these interest payments, it would be an easy matter to date back the restoration of these cuts to 1st May in the manner suggested by the Amendment. Apart from that, I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer met the point which I have made on previous occasions as to treating these payments retrospectively. He has never yet told us on what the date 1st July was based, or on what the finance of his proposal was based.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I really do not understand what the hon. Member means.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the restoration as from 1st July based upon the fact that the figures are going to remain at the same point or not? Is the proposal based upon an increasing improvement in the figures or on what is it based? I suggest that both on that point and on the question of Clause 18 the right hon. Gentleman has not given us a full answer. The Committee ought to insist upon a proper discussion of Clause 18. We have not had such a discussion yet and it appears to me that we are going to be somewhat limited in to-day's discussion but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to find the time and opportunity to give us a fuller answer on these points than he has done.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: The object of the Amendment is to ascertain whether the Committee are in favour of restoring the cuts a little earlier than the date mentioned in the financial statement. If we accept the proposed new Clause without a protest it means that we shall be debarred later on from raising the point which we desire to ventilate. We are anxious that the Committee should realise the plight of the unemployed owing to the deprivation of this 10 per cent. in their benefit and we urge that the restoration should be two months
earlier than the Government propose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated the cost to the Treasury of the restoration at £3,600,000 and one-fifth of that would be round about £800,000. That would be the cost of doing justice to-these people. The financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be accepted by the country as irrevocable and of course if the House of Commons agrees with the financial statement nothing can be done to alter it, but the House of Commons has the right to discuss the financial statement and if the House feels that the restoration of the outs should take place at an earlier date the House has the right to say so.
I was surprised to hear the Minister of Labour use the argument that those who were being relieved of 6d. in the Income Tax were people who had suffered equally with the unemployed. Nobody who pays Income Tax can be said to be suffering like the unemployed. That the 6d. relief in the Income Tax should be made about the same time as the restoration of the cuts, because the additional tax was imposed about the same time as the cut, is no argument at all to an unemployed man or woman. I hope that on this question we shall get an expression of opinion in favour of our proposal not merely from this side of the Committee but also from hon. Members opposite. The agitation in regard to the childrens' allowances had some effect on the Government and caused them to shift their ground. I hope that that fact will not be lost on hon. Members opposite and that some of them at any rate will help us in this matter of an earlier restoration of the cuts. If they refuse to do so it will show that there is no real feeling on the other side in favour of the proposals of this kind.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I understand that this Amendment has been moved primarily for the object of raising a Debate on this question as to the restoration of the cuts. But I wish to ask the Minister of Labour whether, supposing this Amendment were carried, the effect would not be to enable the Treasury to take any surplus which might accrue, in order to pay off the debt on the Unemployment Fund two months earlier than they would otherwise have power to do. We do not want that result.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I do not know what other Members of the Committee feel about it but I am not anxious that we should discuss Clause 18 at this stage. I am mindful of the promise that was given—or at least if a promise was not actually given a broad hint was given by the Prime Minister in response to pressure from hon. Members—that Clause 18 would be recommitted in order that we should have a chance of debating its merits. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman promised it but I think hon. Members in all parts of the Committee share the impression that the Government are under an obligation to allow us an opportunity of discussing Clause 18. I think if we do not get such an opportunity there will be a general impression both in the Committee and in the country as a whole that the Government have evaded their obligations in the matter. I am not anxious to discuss the question of Clause 18, because it cuts into a Debate that I hope we shall have at a later stage, but I would like to ask whether the argument of the Minister against the last Amendment is not now of no force against this Amendment. I understood him to say then that it was highly inconvenient for the 1st May to be put in instead of the 1st July, but I think it is much less inconvenient in this case.
I want to urge on the Government, however, that it is not right for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that bringing forward this date will have no effect on the funds at his disposal. I admit that he would save no money at all with respect to the accumulation of reserves in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, but he would certainly benefit by an alteration in the maximum scales of transitional payment. I understood him to say in his Budget speech that if the scales of benefit were adjusted in accordance with the restoration of the cuts, that would have the effect of raising the maximum rates of transitional payment, which would necessarily mean that he would have to find additional money earlier. That is precisely one of the main reasons why I want this date brought forward.
If hon. Members will think of the situation, I will not say in Durham, because there the Government themselves have brought about larger reductions
in benefit than exist in other parts of the country, but in Glamorganshire and South Wales, they will see that owing, first, to the universal poverty and, secondly, to a humane local government administration, very large percentages—somewhere between 90 and 94 per cent.—of those unemployed and on transitional payment are receiving the maximum transitional payment. Consequently, the assumption arises, although it is not true in every case, that if the restoration was brought forward by two months, all the unemployed people now on transitional payment, in addition to those on insurance benefit, would have an immediate rise in their unemployment insurance payment. That would have a highly beneficial effect on those distressed areas, because practically all the unemployed would have an increase in their benefit.
I would like to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has omitted to deal with the point that he has been handling a surplus of £31,000,000, is already a year behind in the restoration of the cuts, and has allowed the money to flow into the Sinking Fund, but if hon. Members opposite are indeed anxious to assist the distressed areas, if they are sincere in their desire to see to the better nourishment of the children in South Wales, in Lanarkshire, and in Durham, they will vote for the Amendment, because this Amendment will give the higher rates of benefit in those distressed areas two months earlier. I would like to hear from the supporters of the Government—some of those, for example, who went into the Lobby to vote for the 3s. instead of the 9s. for the children—what justification they have for voting against this Amendment, because although it would not increase the children's allowance, it would put the father and the mother in possession of 2s. 9d. for two months longer, and the child would thereby benefit. I would therefore ask them to tell us why they disapprove of this Amendment and yet considered it necessary to raise the children's allowance from 2s. to 3s. I need hardly say that if we could secure this addition for two months, it would have not only a great effect upon the income going into the homes of people in my constituency and in many of the industrial districts, but it would at the
same time have the effect of giving those people much greater encouragement.
There is one further point. If we bring the date of the restoration of the cuts forward in this way, those who are on transitional payment will indeed be able to enjoy the maximum increase longer, because when the Bill comes into operation the maximum is going to be destroyed, and when the maximum is destroyed those who are on transitional payment at the time will to a large extent lose the restoration. In the course of his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the perfectly legitimate point that those who are on maximum transitional payment would receive an immediate benefit in the restoration of the 10 per cent. because the maximum payment would be increased. Indeed, I think he used the figure of something like £3,600,000 in a full year as the cost to the Exchequer of that restoration.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not in a full year, but in the current year. It would be a good deal more than that in a full year.

Mr. BEVAN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It was £3,600,000 in the current year. He was, I gather, unable to estimate it accurately, as it is not yet known who will benefit by the restoration of the cuts, because all who are on the maximum transitional payment will not necessarily, as the law remains now, secure the full 10 per cent. if that 10 per cent. raises their maximum transitional payment above the assessment of need.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What is that? I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but take the case of a person now receiving the maximum amount of 15s. 3d. or the case of a married couple with two children now receiving 27s. 3d. Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman's argument that that ordinary, simple case will not automatically get the increase of benefit granted right away? The public assistance committee has already decreed that they need the full amount of unemployment benefit, and that committee, therefore, can have no alternative but to say that these people need the full unemployment benefit still; in other words, the benefit has been raised to that amount, and the public assistance committee cannot come along and say to a man who is
now getting 15s. 3d., "You will still receive 15s. 3d., although your scale may now be 17s."

Mr. BEVAN: It is precisely because I want that point cleared up that I am raising it, and while the hon. Member and I are entirely at one in the matter, the difficulty is that that agreement is not shared with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is because I am anxious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall make the matter clear that I am raising it. Let me put it from another angle. The local public assistance authority has the obligation under the law to assess the amount of transitional payment to be paid. It decides that the maximum amount of 15s. 3d. a week for a man and 2s. for a child is necessary, but supposing the 10 per cent. is put on, and it raises the amount to 17s., may not the public assistance committee say that that applicant will not receive the full amount of 17s.?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the point that the hon. Member is now raising will arise on the next Clause—that is to say, he is dealing with the effect of the increase.

Mr. BEVAN: I am very anxious to follow up the point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his last speech, and I am trying to argue that this must be brought forward immediately, because if the maximum is destroyed under the Unemployment Insurance Bill when it comes into operation, the advantage of raising the maximum to those on transitional payment will be thereby lost. If it is admitted that all who are now on the maximum will have their maximum raised to the new maximum under these provisions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be able to tell us the exact sum that it will cost him, because it is known how many are at present on the maximum transitional payment.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The numbers may alter.

Mr. BEVAN: Yes, but the numbers of those at present in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit are known now, and if they are the same at the beginning of July, the Chancellor can tell us what it will cost, and he need not leave it to a Supplementary Estimate later on. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us? Because, in point of fact, he
knows very well that automatically all those on the maximum may not be raised to the new maximum; in other words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is cheating the Committee and the country into the belief that he is automatically raising all those on the maximum—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have been listening to the hon. Member very carefully. He is entitled to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what it would cost to bring forward the date by two months, but his argument is now directed to the proposals in the next Clause, and it should be raised then.

Mr. BEVAN: I will not extend the argument now, in deference to your wishes, Captain Bourne. Indeed, I will attempt to bring the matter up on the next Clause, because I am very anxious to secure the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point. I would only like to point out that if we are able to secure the concession that we are now demanding, and if in fact the new maxima are to be increased, it will be to our benefit to have them as early as possible, because, when the new Bill comes into operation and the maxima are destroyed, they will then cease to bear the 10 per cent., and most of the people in our district will have a reduction in their standards of benefit.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to put forward one point which should have some weight. The arguments have centred round the question of administration as to whether the date can or cannot be put forward. I take it that the Minister of Labour, and possibly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will agree that the cost is not keeping the Government from accepting the Amendment. If that be so, it becomes a question of administration. I would like to describe what happens in some parts of the country, for example, on the North-East Coast. Whole factories are shut down for the holidays for a given period of 10 days or a fortnight. For that period all persons come on to the maximum scale of transitional payment. That is to say, during that time, when nobody is working, the great bulk of the insurable population who are unemployed, and who may for the rest of the year never be on the full scale,
automatically come on to the full scale. That is the practice on the North-East Coast, where, during what is known as race week at Newcastle, the works are shut down and the unemployed man on transitional payment comes on to the full scale, although during the rest of the year he may not toe on that scale. In Glasgow this holiday period comes a week after the Bill comes into operation. Glasgow, therefore, will get the benefit of the new Measure, whereas Newcastle will not. Consequently, Newcastle, which is analogous to Glasgow in interests and type of population, will be barred from this benefit at the one time of the year when it is of incalculable value to the people whom it concerns; for at that time great numbers come on for transitional payment who do not come on at any other time of the year, and they will be de barred from receiving the extra shilling or two.
It is therefore important that the date should be early, so that the Bill will come into operation before the holiday period. I would ask the Minister of Labour to consider again the administrative difficulties. I do not think they are insuperable if he is agreed that the cost does not stand in the way. The Opposition have been very reasonable in not insisting on the 1st April and in suggesting the 1st May instead. I remember shortly after the War, when things were much more difficult and when the Minister of Labour had not the machinery at his disposal that he now has, a similar change was made in a much shorter time and without any difficulty. I suggest, therefore, that the Minister should make an attempt to bring about this change at an earlier date. Let Ministers try for once to forget that they are politicians, to think in terms which will do credit to themselves and to do the thing decently. Let them not be always missing the tide and the boat in everything that they do. Let them do the thing now. I cannot see any administrative difficulties, and I am certain that none of the officials see them. I think the Minister might at least announce that he will give way on this point and restore the cuts on 1st May.

5.22 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: We are on a very narrow point. There is no particular
magic in the 1st July; we might be discussing the 1st August or any other date. The only reason we are discussing 1st July is that the original intention of the Government was that this Bill was to be passed by that date. We are suggesting that a better date from every point of view is 1st May. I agree that the 1st April presents considerable difficulties in administration when you are dealing with a large army of unemployed persons, because many of them will have returned to employment by the time the Bill comes into operation. I think the Minister could admit that no particular importance is attached by his Department to the 1st July. That being the case, we are justified in proposing a substitute date. The earlier date would be more satisfactory to everybody concerned, and would more represent the desire of the Committee, in view of the pledges given to the unemployed that the cuts would be restored at the earliest practical date. It is as well to remind the Committee that the proposed new Clause is a machinery Clause and does not raise any question of principle, but we are forced to discuss the date now on this new Clause, because, if we did not, we should not be able to Debate it on the following proposed new Clause. I hope that the Minister will make a concession and accept the earlier date. We could then go on to discuss the large number oil new Clauses. If we do not get a decision on this Clause now, we shall be prevented, owing to the Guillotine, from having discussions on the others.

5.24 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: It really is impossible to substitute 1st May for the 1st July and to pay the benefit at the increased rate from the 1st May without a new Bill. I say that for this reason. The benefits are payable under the Bill as from the 1st July. The only way to pay them, if the date were the 1st May, would be to make them retrospective That would neither answer the purpose which hon. Members have in mind, nor would it be administratively possible. There are not the same people unemployed on the 1st April and on the 1st July. A man who may be unemployed to-day may be employed for the whole of the rest of the time. There may be others, like those mentioned by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who, owing to local circumstances, are on benefit for a fixed time. It would be neither fair nor right nor possible to put the date back and to make payments retrospectively. The numbers with which we deal are not the same, nor are the individuals the same; they vary from week to week and from month to month. Therefore, in order to get what hon. Members want we should have to have a new Bill, because we cannot put the rest of this Bill into operation on the 1st May, as many of the 60 or 60 Clauses are not susceptible to being brought into operation on that date. It is not a question of cost, but a question of the impossibility of doing what is asked.

Question put, "That the word 'July' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 52.

Division No. 200.]
AYES
[5.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Albery, Irving James
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Clarke, Frank


Apsley, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berkt.,Newb'y)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buchan, John
Conant, R. J. E.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cooke, Douglas


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cooper, A. Duff


Barrio, Sir Charles Coupar
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Burnett, John George
Cranborne, Viscount


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootle)


Bernays, Robert
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmiy)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Cross, R. H.


Blindell, James
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Crossley, A. C.


Borodale, Viscount
Castlereagh, Viscount
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Bossom, A. C.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (prtsmth., S.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Davison, Sir William Henry


Dawson, Sir Philip
Law Sir Alfred
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tslde)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leckle, J. A.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Draws, Cedric
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lewis, Oswald
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Duggan, Hubert John
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Salt, Edward W.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Dunglass, Lord
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd.Gr'n)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Savery, Samuel Servington


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Scone, Lord


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Selley, Harry R.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Erskine-Belst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Smithers, Waldron


Fermoy, Lord
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Somerset, Thomas


Flint, Abraham John
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Somervell, Sir Donald


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Maitland, Adam
Soper, Richard


Fox, Sir Gifford
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Martin, Thomas B.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Spens, William Patrick


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Mayhew, Lieut. Colonel John
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Meller, Sir Richard James
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stevenson, James


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stewart, J. H. (Flfe, E.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Storey, Samuel


Glossop, C. W. H.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Strauss, Edward A.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morrison, William Shephard
Summersby, Charles H.


Gower, Sir Robert
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Granville, Edgar
Munro, Patrick
Tate, Mavis Constance


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H, (Derby)


Greene, William P. C
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Grigg, Sir Edward
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fld)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Grimston, R. V.
Nunn, William
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Patrick, Colin M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Tree, Ronald


Hales, Harold K.
Peat, Charles U.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hamilton, Sir Georgs (Ilford)
Penny, Sir George
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hartland, George A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Petherick, M.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Pike, Cecil F.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wayland, Sir William A.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Weymouth, Viscount


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Whyte, Jardlne Bell


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Howitt, Dr. Alfred S.
Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Remer, John R.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hurd, Sir Percy
Ropner, Colonel L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Womersley, Walter James


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ross, Ronald D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Knox, Sir Alfred
Runge, Norah Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Captain Austin Hudson and Lord



Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Erskine.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Edwards, Charles
Jenkins, Sir William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Banfield, John William
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Batey, Joseph
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawson, John James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon, Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Buchanan, George
Groves, Thomas E.
McEntee, Valentine L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grundy, Thomas W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Cove, William G.
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harris, Sir Percy
Maxton, James.


Daggar, George
Hepworth, Joseph
Poling, Wilfred


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Dobble, William
Janner, Barnett
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
White, Henry Graham
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)



Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Thorne, William James
Wilmot, John
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. John.


Tinker, John Joseph
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)



Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to rates of benefit.)

(1) As from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, Article two of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 1) Order, 1981, and the Second Schedule to that Order shall cease to have effect, and benefit shall be at the rates in force immediately before the coming into operation of that Order; and accordingly Sub-section (1) of Section four of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, shall have effect as if the Schedule (Weekly rates of unemployment benefit) to this Act were substituted for the Second Schedule to the said Order, and Sub-section (2) of Section two of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930 (which relates to the increase in the weekly rate of benefit in respect of dependants), shall have effect as if for the words "eight shillings," wherever those words occur, there were substituted the words "nine shillings."

(2) This Section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.—[Sir H. Betterton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.37 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to restore the 10 per cent. cut in the standard rates of insurance benefit. I well remember when I was appointed Minister of Labour in the first National Government that it fell to my lot, within a very few days, to propose these cuts in the rates of standard benefit, and I can say without hesitation that it was to me an extremely distasteful and unpleasant task, but in the circumstances of that time it was an absolutely essential one. The Committee will understand, therefore, that it is a source of some personal gratification to me that it now falls to me to be the medium of proposing the restoration of the cuts which then had to be made. In considering what justification I have for proposing the restoration of the cuts it is not only relevant, but at the same time absolutely essential, to compare the circumstances which prevailed when the cuts were made with those existing to-day, because unless one can show quite clearly, as I shall, that the circumstances
are now so different that they justify us in proposing the restoration, obviously we should not be justified in doing it.
In September, 1931, there was no more urgent question than the finance of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Over a period of years, up to that time, deficits in the fund had been made good by borrowing. The debt was rapidly increasing. In the financial year immediately preceding, the borrowing amounted to £36,500,000, and the debt was going up at the rate of rather more than £1,000,000 a week. Further, the figures of unemployment were rising then at an alarming rate. In 18 months they had risen by 1,200,000, and in September, 1931, the number of registered unemployed was more than 2,800,000, while the number of those in employment was estimated to be 9,196,000. But there was, as it seemed to me, an even more significant fact to be borne in mind. I well remember my predecessor in this office, in the month of June, 1931, I think, when putting before us certain possibilities and certain figures relating to the Insurance Fund, visualising the possibility that the figure of 2,800,000 would rise to 3,000,000 in the approaching winter. She put forward figures based on that hypothesis, which fortunately were not realised; but I think that is sufficient indication of the extreme gravity of the view which those who were in the best position to judge took of the prospects before us.
I have made it clear from time to time that the measures which were being taken were all necessary if our contributory system of unemployment insurance was not to be destroyed, and I have always been careful to distinguish between the changes that were necessary to preserve the financial stability of the contributory unemployment insurance scheme and those other economy measures which were found to be necessary in the wider and more general interests of the country. On referring to the Debates of September, 1931, I find that on 28th September I said:
The fund will not carry benefits on the present scale without recourse to borrowing which it is absolutely imperative to stop—or without such an increase of contributions as would be quite unjustifiable in
relation to the resources of those who have to pay those contributions while they are at work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th September, 1931; col. 104, Vol. 257.]
No one regretted the course we had to take more than I did, but if those were the circumstances then we are now entitled to show what the circumstances are now which justify us in proposing this restoration. On 19th March, 1934, the number of registered unemployed was 2,201,000, a decrease of 600,000 as compared with September, 1931, and the number of persons in employment is estimated to be 10,058,000, an increase of 900,000. While in September, 1931, the expenditure exceeded income at the rate of £60,000,000 a year we now find that with an average live register of 2,300,000 the income would exceed the expenditure at the rate of £6,500,000 a year—with the changes made by the Unemployment Bill. Therefore, in my view, we are justified now in saying that the fund will carry benefits at the rates in operation before the cuts were made and without any danger to the financial stability of the fund. In case there should be any misapprehension, I should like to make it perfectly clear that nothing which we are proposing in this Clause will prejudice the Statutory Committee in dealing with the future position of the Unemployment Fund. As I have explained very fully more than once, it will be open to the Committee to recommend any alteration in any particular item and to recommend the adjustment of contributions if they think fit.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is not in his place, and I am sorry that he is not, because on more than one occasion he has made a point with which I am now going to deal. Other hon. Members have also made it during the discussions on this Bill. They have said that the Statutory Committee may make a recommendation as to the restoration of the cuts, but on the other hand may not; that there is no guarantee that the cuts will be restored in the unemployment benefit; that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might find himself in a position to do something with regard to the other cuts, but the Committee might not recommend that that restoration be made in insurance benefits, and that, therefore, there is no guarantee. I think hon. Members will realise that it was impossible, at the time when those criticisms were
made, for us to meet them, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself would like to have done, without exposure of the forthcoming Budget Statement.
There is another point which I want to make, because I referred to it when I was proposing, in 1931, the imposition of these cuts. When the reductions in the rates of benefit were made I showed that if allowance was made for the fall in the cost of living between 1924 and September, 1931, the reduced rate of 15s. 3d. for a single man was almost exactly equivalent in purchasing power to the rate of 18s. for a single man, which was the weekly rate of benefit under the Act of the first Labour Government. In proposing that the rates of insurance benefit should be fully restored, the Government are returning to the rates of benefit passed by the Labour Government in their Act of 1930. I should like the House to realise that, after this Bill passes into law, an unemployed man who is drawing standard benefit will be in a far better position than he was in 1930. The cost-of-living index to-day is 39.0 per cent. over 1914; the cost-of-living index for the year ended March, 1930, was 63.5. If the proposed rates of benefit at the present cost of living are adjusted to represent their full value, allowing for the fall in the cost of living, hon. Members will find that 17s. per week to-day is worth more than 17s. per week in 1930 by no less than 3s. In other words, a man can buy as much for 17s. per week to-day as he could buy for 20s. in 1930.
The comparison of the real values of the rates of benefit for a married man is even stronger. Under the new rates of benefit, a man with a wife and two children will receive 30s. per week when this Bill becomes law. In real values that is worth 35s. 3d. by the standards of 1930. It is clear from this comparison that we are not only placing the unemployed insured man in the position he was in before the reduction of the benefit was made, but in a far better position, having regard to the real value of the benefit. I am certain that the Committee will join with me in expressing satisfaction that it is now possible to restore in full the rates of standard benefit, and to pay those rates out of the fund, the financial stability of which is, in my judgment, assured.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I fully appreciate and so do my hon. Friends how distasteful the right hon. Gentleman's task was in 1931. I do not quite share his view that that task was essential, but all of us give him credit for having had to pilot through the House a reduction of benefit that must have been very highly distasteful to him. I must say that, because it will perhaps be the last kind word which I shall say about him before I sit down.
I have not noticed any spirit of jubilation in the Committee this afternoon. I had thought that when the Committee stage of the Bill was resumed and these new Clauses were to be discussed, and when we were to have before the Committee for the first time a restoration of the cuts, that the benches would have been crowded by enthusiastic supporters of the Government wishing to pay tribute to the magnificent statesmanship of the right hon. Gentleman. I have not noticed any special enthusiasm either about the first of the new Clauses which we discussed or about the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman has now moved. In our opinion, this is a very tardy long-delayed act of justice to unemployed workers. Yes, a partial one, as my hon. Friends remind me. There never was any reason for delay in announcing this concession.
The right hon. Gentleman has given us an example this afternoon of the efficiency of his Department. He quoted figures which were used in the House by his predecessor, Miss Bondfield, as regards unemployment. The Government have known for the past 12 months the trend of the unemployment figures, and they knew roughly what the reduced scales of benefit would mean in expenditure. They knew what the increased scales of contribution, about which we have heard very little to-day, would mean. It was perfectly possible for the Government, because they had the knowledge at the time of the Second Beading of this Bill, to have included a Clause saying that they were going to restore the cuts. They did not choose to do that. They were waiting until the great mystery day, the great Budget day, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer descends here in a cloud of smoke and goes up in flame as the hero of his supporters. It was left to him, for no reason
whatever, to announce the restoration of the cuts in unemployment insurance benefit.
Speaking for my hon. Friends, I am bound to say that none of us will vote against this Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] At least, we are consistent. We opposed the imposition of the reductions in 1931, and we should be untrue to our faith if on this occasion we were not to support the Government. We regard this as a very tardy act on their part. They have known for a long time that they have been piling up a surplus in the fund. It is admitted that, with unemployment at its present level, there will be a surplus of £16,000,000 a year, or three times as much as the fund is going to help to provide every year as a prior charge. We have heard very little to-day about the £5,500,000 which has to be paid in two half-yearly instalments towards wiping off the debt, but we know that the Government must have known, at the time when they imposed the new rates of benefit and the new rates of contribution, that in a very short time the fund would have a surplus. Indeed, they boasted that that was their intention, and their one ambition and aim has been to make the fund at least self-supporting.
Now, as a result of the increased contribution—there is nothing in any new Clause to restore the old contributions—and a diminution of unemployment which is shared by the world and is not confined to this country, nor is it in any way due to the actions of this Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I understood in 1931 that the situation was due to world causes, and it is sometimes suggested that prior to 1931 it was due to the Labour Government. I quite understand the attitude of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, but I understood that the "economic blizzard" was due to world causes. It has been recorded since 1931 that such improvement as there has been in trade is also due to world causes. Therefore, I can give the Government no credit for any reduction whatever. I can only charge them with acts of their own in regard to which there has been legislation, such as the reduction of benefit, the increase of contribution and the surplus on the fund which they have been nursing and which they meant to disclose at the appropriate time in order to fulfil election promises made in 1931.
I said on the earlier Clause that the restoration of the cuts is not comparable with the reduction of the Income Tax; it is in no way comparable. Unemployed workers in 1931 had a far larger cut in their incomes than did the Income Tax payers, and all employed persons had to pay a larger contribution in order to help to keep the unemployed. There has been a considerable volume of opinion in the country which even reached the ears of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Income Tax payer would have preferred a full restoration of all the rates which the unemployed enjoyed, and of the benefit which they had prior to 1931 before their incomes were reduced. It came to the ears of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who took it upon himself to reprove the Archbishop of York for interfering in politics; but, from my knowledge of the two gentlemen, I would rather have the Archbishop's political judgment than the Chancellor's on a matter of this kind.
I come to the next point, and it is a purely political point. The right hon. Gentleman last week, when in his Budget statement he dealt with the restoration of cuts, was dealing with something which had nothing whatever to do with the Budget at all. Why was it done? It was done in order to gild the pill of the reduction of the Income Tax for the masses of the people. The two things were linked together. Income Tax is dealt with in the Budget; it is part of the normal income of the nation. As regards the Unemployment Fund, the right hon. Gentleman, during the discussion on the first Clause, tried to correct an hon. Friend of mine about his making a profit out of the Unemployment Fund. He got up, full of indignation, to explain that he was doing no such thing—that it was the Unemployment Fund, and he had nothing whatever to do with it. I must say that I think the Government would have treated this Committee and the country more honestly if they had restored the cuts, as they knew they could have done, when the Bill was introduced. I think that as a National Government—which never considers party political issues, so I understand—it would have been better for them to have been sufficiently honest to do that, and not to try to mix this question with a reduction of the Income Tax and a
reduction of the horse-power tax on motor cars.
This matter had nothing whatever to do with the Budget; it has no relation to the Budget. The fund is a fund which is contributed to by the Treasury on principles decided by legislation, but the amount that is paid in does not depend on the right hon. Gentleman when the legislation is passed; it depends on the number of insured workers. The fund is contributed to by three parties, and it is due to the surplus which those three parties have created under the provisions of legislation that there is now a balance of £16,000,000 in the fund, which is enabling the Government to restore the rates of benefit—rates which, in the judgment of most of us, ought never to have been reduced. I hope that supporters of the Government, in all fairness, whatever they may think about the Budget, will not put this to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget, but will regard this act of restitution on the part of the Government as due to the reasons to which it really is due—first, an increase of contributions in 1931; secondly, a reduction of benefits in 1931; and, thirdly, a reduction of unemployment due to nothing that this Government has done specially to bring it about on the scale on which it has come about. The Government, with all these facts in their minds from the beginning, have delayed a long overdue return to the old standard rates of benefit, and, while I do not wish to accuse them unduly, they have done it for political reasons. We of course accept, in these qualified terms, the restoration of the cuts. We doubt the Government's motives; we think they have been very late in doing it; and we are bound to say that the people who have made it possible have not been the Government, but very largely the unemployed who have been suffering during the last 2½ years, and those who are at work and on whom increased contributions have been imposed.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I think that no one who was in the House of Commons in the autumn of 1931, when it fell to the lot of my right hon. Friend to propose these cuts which he has now had the satisfaction of cancelling, would doubt the extreme distastefulness to him of his task at that time. I am sure that everyone in the House will be glad that he has had the satisfaction, at perhaps
an earlier period than at that time seemed likely, of coming down to the House and proposing that the cuts should be cancelled. The way in which the country accepted and continued to endure the cuts which were then imposed was one of the most remarkable things in the national life of this country in recent years. Prior to the Election, there were people who thought that the possibility of governing this country by accepted methods was coming rather near to an end. That turned out not to be the case. Another very remarkable thing has been the development of public opinion with regard to the restoration of these cuts. There has been something bordering upon complete unanimity in this country that they should be restored at the very earliest possible moment.
I do not wish on this occasion, which is, after all, a remarkable and satisfactory one, to engage in the somewhat ungrateful and ungracious task of looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I cannot refrain from pointing out that an impression is gaining ground that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is having, if I may use a colloquialism, rather too easy a getaway with the restoration of the cuts. The Minister of Labour was able to give the Committee a very welcome catalogue of facts indicating the satisfactory condition in which the fund now is and the satisfatory reduction in unemployment which has taken place over the last 12 months; but in the course of that recital he did not mention that, from the financial point of view at all events, it is an argument to which I do not think there is any answer that the restoration of the cuts has been possible owing to the fact that the emergency levy which was made upon the contributors to the fund in 1931, namely, the raising of the 7d. and 8d. contributions to 10d., is still in force.
I sincerely hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not prove obdurate with regard to the debt upon the fund, which I hope we may have an opportunity of discussing on some other occasion, and that the emergency levy, too, will not be regarded as being outside the scope of the things which it is an obligation of the country to restore. I hope that it will not be left entirely to the Statutory Committee, without guidance
and indication as to the national purpose in this matter. It is indeed important from the point of view of industry—which, at this stage of the national recovery, needs rather urgently some fresh impetus—that an encouragement of that kind should be given to industry by a reduction of the contributions which have to be paid. I am very glad indeed that it is now possible to cancel out the cuts, not merely from the human aspect of the problem—although I think that that is perhaps the most important aspect of all—but also for the technical reason that it brings the Bill somewhat nearer to the sphere in which it may become a practical and workable scheme. As the Bill was introduced, with the two competing authorities of Part I and Part II, it was utterly impossible that the Unemployment Insurance scheme should have survived. Whether it can survive now or not I do not know, but, at all events, the financial readjustment which will follow from the passage of the Clause we are now discussing will make it more possible for the contributory scheme to survive. Whether it will or not can only be tried out by actual experience, for it remains to be seen whether the disadvantages, if there are any disadvantages, of the allowances under Part II will be so great as to make it worth the while of men to pay contributions of 10d. a week in order to secure benefit under the contributory scheme. There must be a check somewhere in Part II if that inducement is to be worth more than 10d. a week. But we shall have to await the development of administrative methods before we realise how it will work out. For these and other reasons I am sure the whole Committee will welcome the Clause, and will be glad that the right hon. Gentleman himself has had the opportunity of cancelling out the work which he began in 1931.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I rise to continue a point which I endeavoured to make when we were discussing the last Clause, but on which at the time neither the Minister of Labour nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have replied without being out of order. Before, however, I come to that point I would like to say also that the pleasure of no Member of this Committee is exceeded by my own at the restoration of this 10 per cent.
I represent in the House a constituency in which over 55 per cent. of the adult population are unemployed, and are, as far as I can see, likely to be unemployed for some time; and the restoration of even this small amount must make a considerable difference in the circumstances of those people. It is because of my pleasure at the restoration of the cut in that way that I am anxious that the restoration should be consolidated, and that there should be nothing at all in the Clause or in the Bill which might take away from my people what it is suggested they are now to receive.
I do not want to subject this matter to too microscopical an examination, which might be considered ungrateful, but nevertheless I am compelled, in the interests of my constituents, to put one or two questions, but I should first like to point out that the Minister of Labour, in moving the Second Reading of the Clause, did not put before the Committee all the relevant facts. He emphasised, of course, as he was entitled to do—though I must say that some people in my constituency seem to hold a different view—that the cost of living has fallen substantially. That raises not only the existing value of unemployment insurance benefit, but also the value of the amount which is being restored. At the same time, however, the right hon. Gentleman should remember that the value of the increased contributions has also gone up. If there was a 40 per cent. increase in the workmen's contributions in 1931—as there was—and if we accept the right hon. Gentleman's figure for the increase in the value of money in the meantime, the increase in the contributions may now be valued at 55 per cent., so that the workman who is contributing to the solvency of the fund is contributing 55 per cent. more in value than he did in 1931. So that we have to set that off on the debit side. I should like to put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will the public assistance authorities be entitled on 1st July to increase the maxima of those on transitional payments to the new maxima? I tried to get a reply earlier, and I understood the Chancellor to shake his head and intimate that they will not be entitled to do so.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not shake my head, and I did not say anything.

Mr. BEVAN: Then, are we to conclude from the right hon. Gentleman's silence that the public assistance authorities will be entitled to raise the maxima to the new maxima? It is a point of very great importance.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member, surely, cannot be under any misunderstanding. Transitional payments are limited by Statute to the amount of the unemployment insurance benefit and, if the benefit is put up the maximum transitional payment that can be paid at the expense of the Exchequer is put up at the same time.

Mr. BEVAN: That is quite clear to me. I was under no misapprehnsion about it at all. I understand that, if the maxima are increased, transitional payments will, in very many instances, also be increased and the burden on the Exchequer increases. That is clear to me. What is not clear is the amount by which it can be increased and, indeed, if I am in some doubt about the matter, it is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer shares my doubt. In making his calculation, he was unable to tell by what amount the demand upon the Budget would be added to by the alteration of the maximum. He made the calculation that it might be somewhere in the region of £3,600,000 in the current year. If hon. Members are correct in the assumption that, where men are now receiving the maximum transitional payment, they will be entitled to receive the new maximum on 1st July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be able to tell us now what it will cost.

Mr. MABANE: Surely the Chancellor will not know how the needs of a family have altered. One member of a family may get employment.

Mr. BEVAN: The assumption upon which I am going is one which was shared generally by supporters of the Government, and which they derived from the Chancellor's speech, that the raising of the level of insurance benefit would carry with it the raising of the standard of transitional payment where those people were on the maximum. I suppose that in many parts of the country over the week-end supporters of the Government have been trying to make the most of the point. Before the matter leaves the Committee, I should
like to get some clarity upon it, because the public assistance committees are watching the position very carefully. They want to know where they are. If I am correct in assuming that the maximum transitional payment will be increased to the new maximum, I cannot understand the Chancellor's difficulty in giving us the figure of cost. The hon. Member opposite did not assist him at all. It may be that in the meantime the figures will change, but so will the figures of unemployment generally. Surely, the figure of unemployment on 1st July is roughly calculable.

Mr. MABANE: The hon. Member himself has just made it plain why the Chancellor cannot estimate exactly.

Mr. BEVAN: As a matter of fact, the Chancellor has not estimated at all. He said that probably a Supplementary Estimate will be necessary. The position of the Chancellor is that at the moment the figure is unknown, and it is unknown because it is not intended that those in receipt of transitional payment at the maximum should be raised to the new maximum automatically on 1st July. We desire to bring that out, because it reveals to the full the utter hypocrisy of the Chancellor's claim that they are restoring the cuts to the unemployed. No such thing is being done. The value to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the reduction in transitional payment is infinitely greater than the reduction in unemployment insurance benefit, and to that extent he is still keeping back money which properly belongs; to the unemployed.
I should like to make the position even clearer than that. If a man is receiving 15s. 3d. a week at the moment, and 15s. 3d. is the assessment of his need by the public assistance authority, and if the public assistance authority would have assessed his need at 17s: a week if the maximum did not stand in the way, he would automatically get his 17s, a week. If, on the other hand, a man is receiving 15s. 3d. a week and they would have assessed his need at 16s. a week, he will get the ninepence. He will not get 17s. In other words, there is no automatic raising of the man at 15s. 3d. to the new level of 17s.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think the hon. Member will
see here that he is getting out of order. On this Clause he is coming to a discussion of the whole machinery of Part II of the Bill. I have been following very carefully, and I thought I foresaw what was coming. Up to the present I did not think I need say anything, but his last sentence gives me the idea that he is now going to discuss Part II of the Bill.

Mr. BEVAN: It was not my intention to do that. I wanted to confine myself strictly to the financial consequences of the proposal now before the Committee. I am extremely anxious to find out what the value of this concession is, because the public assistance committees all over the country are watching this Debate. Am I correct in assuming that there will be no automatic increase? If there is to be no automatic increase, of course the Chancellor cannot tell us what new assessment the public assistance committees will make. They may make it 15s., 16s. or 16s. 9d. They do not know, and these men will be subject to a deprivation to which they were not subject in 1931.

The CHAIRMAN: If so, that deprivation does not come under this new Clause.

Mr. BEVAN: When I raised the matter a little time ago your predecessor, Sir Dennis, gave a Ruling that I should be in order in raising it on this Clause, and I was not in order in raising it on the last.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has raised it now for nearly a quarter of an hour, and I made no complaint until the last minute or two of what he has done, but he is now getting beyond what is in order.

Mr. BEVAN: May I ask the Chancellor whether the amount of transitional payment that is at present being paid can be automatically increased on 1st July by 10 per cent. or will the public assistance committees find themselves faced with a hostile Minister of Labour, a hostile Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a hostile Minister of Health if they say, "Obviously the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided that a man cannot be expected to live on 15s. 3d. a week; the standard of unemployment insurance benefit is to be raised, and consequently our estimate of a man's need should be adjusted to the new standard, and the amount should be raised."? If that is
not the case, the gap between the man on transitional benefit and the man on unemployment insurance benefit widens and, as the gap widens, the injustice to the worst hit people of the country increases. As the gap between transitional payment and unemployment insurance increases, you not only perpetuate the 1931 cut but you perpetuate it at a greater value. I, therefore, ask hon. Members to defend that proposition.
There is one more point I should like to make. When the Bill comes into operation, the maximum rate of benefit will be abolished. An hon. Member opposite has made the point on several occasions that one of the merits of the Bill is that it enables the new board to pay more than the maximum rates, and, consequently, that we were not entitled to argue that a man would receive less under the board than he is getting at present; indeed he might receive more. I cannot quite understand where hon. Members now are. Here we are raising the amount of insurance benefit because, presumably, a man who is receiving benefit in respect of his contributions is a worthier person than one who has exhaused his benefit. That is what you are saying if you keep transitional payment where it is, and raise unemployment benefit. If, under the Bill, you contemplate raising a man higher in Unemployment Insurance benefit, why does not the Committee now demand that the transitional payment rates of this man shall be automatically increased to the new level now set up? Obviously it is intended that there should be a wide margin between the two.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member now is definitely out of order. If he proposed an Amendment to that effect, it would be ruled out of order. It is entirely outside the scope of this Clause, and is already covered by the provisions which the Committee have passed in Part II of the Bill.

Mr. BEVAN: I was concluding on that argument, because I was extremely anxious to find out the actual proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest to hon. Members that, if they are anxious concerning the unemployed people in the distressed districts of
Great Britain, they should force the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a reply to the two questions which I have put. The questions—and I will repeat them for the benefit of the Committee—are (a), whether on 1st July men who are on the maximum rates of transitional payment will automatically be raised to the new maxima now set; and (b), whether those who are now receiving transitional payment will be entitled automatically to receive, or the local authorities be entitled to give, the 10 per cent. increase in the transitional payment of those then in receipt of payments in accordance with the new standards which the Government consider desirable? If the answer to the two questions is "No," then I would say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is not restoring the cuts, but is still hitting harder those who are already hardest hit.

The CHAIRMAN: Any argument based on the result of such an answer is again out of order. I did not rule, and do not propose to rule, the hon. Member out of order, because he has requested information which he wants in considering these things, but it is a request the answer to which does not pertain to this Clause at all, but to something already passed by the Committee.

Mr. BEVAN: Will not the Chancellor of the Exchequer be entitled to give a reply to those questions?

The CHAIRMAN: I have already said that I had allowed the hon. Member to ask the question, but I am objecting to him going on with his argument. I shall allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer the question, again up to a certain point, but if he refers to certain matters which are out of order I shall have to stop him.

Mr. BEVAN: I am perfectly content to leave the matter at that. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position to reply, I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will be very anxious to hear what he has to say.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. MABANE: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) was endeavouring to discover some nefarious purpose on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he had said that he could not make an exact estimate of what the hon. Member thought ought to
be made. Suppose Part I of the Act came into force before Part II, and suppose that during that year a number of people who were on transitional payment came on to the additional 26 weeks, that would vary the estimate. I will give him another reason. The needs of a family are varied by the number of people in the family who are in receipt of wages. Suppose at the time the hon. Gentleman wants the estimate to be made the number of people in employment has continued to increase at the rate at which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has indicated it has increased recently, that would be another reason why it would be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an exact estimate of the kind which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale indicated. Therefore, I think that his point that he can find some nefarious purpose on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer merely because he said that, quite truly and obviously, he cannot so inform him, is not a good one.

Mr. BEVAN: What the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) has said is that, in point of fact, the answer to my two questions, given on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is "No."

6.37 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Clause which we are discussing definitely fixes the allowances in the case of the dependants. When we have passed the Clause, we shall have practically said in effect that there can be no alteration in the amount for the dependents fixed by the Government. The Committee are now engaged in fixing the scales of benefit for those on standard benefit. Practically no Amendment to alter dependants' benefits will be allowed once we have disposed of the Clause. We are fixing the scales of benefit not for the claimant but for the dependants. It would be appropriate at this stage if something could be said in connection with what has already taken place on the restoration of the cuts. It is true that the Government have restored cuts to the extent of 10 per cent., but they have not entirely restored the cuts to the unemployed. The unemployed suffered other cuts. They had their standard benefit cut down, roughly speaking, from 70 weeks to 26 weeks, and they had to face the operation of a means test. Consequently the Government
are only restoring in effect one of the three cuts which have been made. To-day they are fixing the amount to be payable in standard benefits to a wife and child of an unemployed man. It would be entirely wrong to allow the opportunity to pass without making a protest.
I am sorry that, for technical reasons, an Amendment increasing the amount in respect of children to 6s. and also increasing the amount allowed in respect of a wife will not be called. I have observed, both on this side of the Committee and on that, a clamant desire to see the contributions reduced. I am not an opponent of reducing contributions, but I am not clamouring for it to be done. I am in touch with the ordinary working people as much as anyone in this Committee, and I have found no desire on their part to have the contributions lowered. Before I would be a party to reducing the amounts paid by the working people, I want to see a greater amount of unemployment benefit given to the children, and also to the wife of the claimant. The first thing to do is to see that the amounts given for the maintenance of human beings are raised to a decent and humanitarian level.
I want to refer to a matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) in regard to the form of determination. I know that in essence the answer may be that public assistance committees determine the amount payable to an unemployed man. A man now receives 15s. 3d. Is it to be taken that that 15s. 3d. is automatically raised to 17s.? A man who has a family working has 8s. on a determination claim. Is he to receive a 10 per cent. increase on the 8s.? In other words, is the 10 per cent. to apply to every award which has been made? On the present fixed basis of the working of the public assistance committees will everybody, whether receiving 15s. 3d., or a larger or a smaller sum, have the amount increased by the 10 per cent. allowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? That is the point which should be answered. It is not sufficient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister to say that it is for the local public assistance committees to determine. In that case you would not be restoring it, but leaving it to a subsidiary body to say whether the increase should take place or not.
Parliament has, in fact, said that it shall be restored, and no subsidiary body should be allowed to deviate from what Parliament has decided. We want to know definitely whether everybody who receives a transitional payment is to have the benefit of the 10 per cent.? I think that the public assistance committees will not possibly continue to operate long after 1st July, and that possibly to that extent there may be a new board, but whether it be a new board or public assistance committee we should know the intention.
I want to reinforce the plea that is being made in respect of the benefit to dependants. I know it has been argued by the Minister of Labour that the cost of living has fallen, and the same argument was put forward by his predecessor. We may change Governments, but coalition in this respect seems to continue. The Lady who occupied the position of Minister of Labour in the Labour Government, when we advocated the payment of 5s. to dependants, quoted figures to show that in 1930 the cost of living had fallen so much as compared with the cost of living in 1924. In 1924, when the Labour party were in office, a Liberal Member moved that the allowance should be 3s., and we were told that the cost of living had fallen. The cogent point is not whether the cost of living has gone down or not, but whether 2s. is sufficient to maintain a child. I will concede all the figures and facts concerning the cost of living being down. I will admit that the cost of living to-day is a little lower than in 1929. I admit that hon. Members on this side voted for 2s. then. That was acknowledged by one hon. Member who said that the Liberals made him do it. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter; it is serious. What an admission, that anybody could make one vote for 2s. in such circumstances. Whether it was their Government or their party that made them vote for 2s., that is no excuse. Nothing should have made hon. Members do it. Humanity comes before party. It is a most degrading excuse. Hon. Members did it as individuals. There is no excuse. Rather than have been a party to such a proposal, either in 1924 or 1930, that a child should live on 2s., I would gladly have gone out of public life. These defences leave me cold.
The claim that I make is that to-day, even with the restoration of the cuts, the child life of this country cannot be maintained on such a figure. I read a very moving passage in the speech made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) last week. He asked why this House of Commons and this Government would persist in ill-treating the young. He said that it was the young who suffered, the young who were kept back. When I read that passage it moved me very much, but these things can be charged against all of them. There is still an opportunity for decent men and decent women, who have some independence, to insist that this provision is uncharitable, inhuman and wrong. I hope that the Committee will see that some restoration is made, so that a child is given sufficient to enable it to be maintained under humane conditions.

6.48 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I have been silent while the Minister of Labour has been cross-examined on the intentions of the Government. I thought the intentions of the Government were quite clear, and that there was to be, automatically, a 10 per cent. increase in the allowances for transitional benefit, in the same way as for standard benefit; that is, if the conditions remain the same, if the number of children and dependants remain unaltered. The intention of the Government, I take it, is that the various public assistance committees on 1st July should automatically increase the allowances by 10 per cent., and that the cuts should be restored on that day. We are entitled to an answer, yes or no, on that point. The Government, of course, are entitled to make the qualification, "providing that the conditions remain the same." We are entitled to have the air cleared not only in the interests of the people concerned, but in the interests of the people who have the difficult and responsible task of administration to carry out.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I am surprised at the silence of the Government supporters. I well remember last week when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement that the unemployed were to have their cuts restored, and I should have thought that hon. Members supporting the Government would have assisted the Opposition in bringing up
this point and seeing that it was cleared up. Am I to conclude that their silence is an indication that they believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week decided that the whole of the unemployed were to have their 10 per cent. cut restored? If their silence implies that, I shall welcome the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. From the interventions we have had from supporters of the Government that cannot be so, because they infer that the means test is to continue to be applied.

The CHAIRMAN: We certainly cannot discuss on this proposed new Clause the question whether or not the means test is to continue.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am prepared to sit down if the Chancellor of the Exchequer replies on this point.

The CHAIRMAN: I have said that, having allowed a question to be asked, I should certainly allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer, but I guarded myself by saying that I could not allow discussion upon this point, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to be discussing it I should have to correct him. I will do my best to make the matter clear. There are certain provisions of Part II which have been decided upon and which this Clause does not purport to alter in any way. If that is the case, any attempt to discuss those provisions of Part II which have already been passed and are not dealt with in the proposed new Clause, cannot be made on the new Clause.

Mr. WILLIAMS: There seems to be no doubt that the rates of payment that will be made under Part II are determined by Part I, and by this Clause. I think that is the substance of the Debate. If the 10 per cent. is to be restored in accordance with the new Clause from 15s. 3d. to 17s., and in the case of a wife from 8s. to 9s., it would seem that under Part II that is the maximum that is to be paid.

The CHAIRMAN: That is outside this Clause. Whether or not the hon. Member correctly interprets the provisions of the Clause, I cannot say, but the provision for the relief that may be granted under Part II does not arise here. It seems to me that we are drifting into a discussion of the general provisions of
Part II, and that is definitely out of order.

Mr. WILLIAMS: There is no provision for the restoration of the 10 per cent. to an enormous number of unemployed who come under transitional benefit. There are no means whereby 1,000,000 persons can receive the 10 per cent. restoration. They are definitely excluded by this Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: No, but by Part II, which has already been passed.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be able to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan)?

The CHAIRMAN: It is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, and not for me. He can give any answer he chooses, as long as I do not stop him for being out of order.

Sir LUKE THOMPSON: Are we not discussing the rates of standard benefit under this Clause? Is it not permissible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply if he cares to do so? The question of transitional payment does not arise.

The CHAIRMAN: I have given my Ruling upon that point.

Mr. LAWSON: Following upon the point of Order, would it be proper to say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot answer the question about transitional payment, and we cannot discuss it on this Clause, then there is no opportunity of discussing it?

6.55 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I do not want to be out of order. I want to ask a question relating to the rates of standard benefit and transitional payment. The Minister of Labour will remember that he gave us repeated assurances during the discussion of the earlier parts of the Bill on two things: (1) that the scale of assistance adopted by the Unemployment Assistance Board would not be limited by the scale of unemployment benefit, and (2) that a person in receipt of ordinary benefit would be able to receive supplementary benefit subject to the means test in future from the Unemployment
Assistance Board instead of the Poor Law authorities. Is that so?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I must rule both those questions out of order.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: One must be careful in addressing the Committee on this point not to transgress the Rules of Order, which bind us rather narrowly on this matter. I do not want to fall into the difficulty experienced by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) of seeing how far I could go in being out of order. I should like to say in respect to the point on which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) laid so much emphasis, namely, that we are here finally laying down the rates of benefit for dependants, that while that is true, when the Bill comes into operation the Statutory Committee will begin to function. Assuming, as we may fairly do, that the Statutory Committee foresee a surplus in the fund which can be used to improve the conditions, it will be for them to say how in their opinion that surplus should be used in the best interests of the unemployed themselves. If they think that an increase in the benefit for dependants is the right way to dispose of the surplus, or part of it, then they will make a recommendation to that effect. In the same way, they might recommend that there should be a decrease in the contributions payable by employers and employed, which would carry with it a reduction in the contribution payable by the Exchequer. Therefore, the position is not a final one. It is final in the sense that this House then has finished with its power of altering benefits until it receives a recommendation from the Statutory Committee, but after that it is a matter which will revert to it again.
With regard to some questions that have been asked by the hon. Member, it is not true that the operations of the board are governed by the alterations in the general rate of benefit. Of course, when Part II comes into operation, then the Unemployment Assistance Board is set up, and the board is not limited, in the amount which it may grant in a particular case as is the case with transitional payments by any alterations in the amount of the standard benefit.
Therefore, when the Unemployment Assistance Board comes into operation, there is no question of it being in any way bound or limited—or, indeed, affected—by any alteration that we make in the rates of standard benefit.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: For all practical purposes it would be.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No; the hon. Member is quite mistaken about that. The provisions of this Bill confirm my view. The Unemployment Assistance Board will proceed on different principles altogether. Now, transitional payments are limited by Statute to the amount of the standard benefit. If the needs of a man are not met by the amount which it is permissible to pay, then he has to go to the public assistance committee to supplement what is given him as transitional payment, to the extent of his need. He will not have to go to the public assistance committee any more when the board is in operation, because it is part of the functions of the board to meet the whole need of anybody, instead of the need being met, as is now done, partly by one agency and partly by another.
In reply to the particular points of the question put by the hon. Member: in the first place, he complained that I had stated that I could not possibly foretell the amount of the Supplementary Estimate which would be necessary to carry out the increases which would be given to those who are entitled to transitional payments. The hon. Member threw doubt upon the value of the benefit which these people are to receive. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) has already pointed out some clear and unescapable reasons why it is not possible for me to estimate accurately the amount which is to fall upon the Exchequer when the circumstances are changed. When, however, the question is put, "Is this automatially an increase which applies to every award which has been made?" clearly, I think, the answer is "No." It must be: it cannot be otherwise. I stated in my Budget speech if the payment is on a needs basis there cannot be an automatic increase. It is a very substantial increase, and the fact that there is a very large amount of money to be distributed over these people testifies to the fact. I have
stated that in nine months of the financial year I estimate that a sum of £3,600,000 may be needed for this purpose.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Could I take this point, which has not been clearly brought out? The right hon. Member has said that the cuts are to be restored. Taken that they are to be restored, is the man on transitional payment equal to the man on standard benefit? He is now receiving a determination, or a payment, from the Exchange; that is based on his present needs. Has the present need to be increased by the amount of the 10 per cent. granted to the people on standard benefit? That is the point. Or, has the public assistance committee the right to say that, although Parliament is granting this restoration of cut, they are not going to enforce the restoration? That is the point. Is the public assistance committee likely to set aside the restoration of the cut which the right hon. Gentleman has granted?

7.5 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The Committee must be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving a very clear answer to the question that has been put concerning the automatic increase of the standard benefit applied to people who are on transitional payment, and the answer has been No. Those of us who are familiar with the working of the matter, and the Chancellor and the Minister who has been chiefly responsible, certainly knew that. I do not intend to pursue the matter, except to say that this answer is no only giving a very different interpretation to what was conveyed to the House last Tuesday, but has also had a very different effect upon hon. Members in discussing the Clause that has been moved. I was pleased when I saw it, and no hon. Members of any party are more grateful and delighted than we are, that this restoration is to apply on 1st July. I must say, however, that when I saw this Amendment put down to the Clause, I thought that the unemployed were to get these cuts restored twice over: they got one last week through the Chancellor of the Exchequer and were to get another now from the Minister of Labour. In fact, however, they are only getting it once, and according to the right hon. Gentleman's answer they are
actually paying it back themselves. In that case some of the leader-writers of the semi-official Government papers will have to re-write their articles. We did not demur at all. We are delighted that the state of trade has improved. The Government can take all the credit they like; we do not care who takes the credit. We understood that the cuts were going to be restored from July. We now understand, however, that the unemployed are restoring their own cuts through their contributions to the fund. It is very well worth while to have had these questions made clear in the minds of hon. Members. The changed tone of the House to-day, as compared with its tone last week on this matter, is very significant. The only explanation I can give is that, instead of merely being satisfied with hearing the Chancellor and reading leading articles on this matter, by men who are practically Government officials, in certain newspapers, many hon. Members have been to their constituencies and now know—and if they do not know, at any rate their constituents know—what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did last week.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question, if he would be good enough to answer it. How did he arrive at the sum of £3,600,000 as the extra cost in the transitional payments, and how did he arrive at the number of persons who he has calculated will receive the extra benefit from the alteration? This is a very important matter for the Committee, Unquestionably, the House thought last week that everybody was to receive a restoration of 10 per cent., and it would be interesting to know how many persons get that amount of benefit, and how the Chancellor arrives at that particular sum.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: The Chancellor should reply to that question, for it is one which many other hon. Members would like to hear answered. The Chancellor's speech fixed £3,600,000 as the additional expenditure to those who are on transitional benefit. The question is, how did he arrive at that figure? It means that approximately only 500,000 recipients of transitional benefit will receive the restoration of the cut. If the
Chancellor meant the House and the country to believe that the unemployed were to have the restoration of the cuts, surely the impression he made was that all the unemployed were to have the cuts restored. Altogether there are over 1,000,000 recipients receiving transitional payments, and the Chancellor has provided for only 500,000. He ought to have told the House that last week instead of leaving us to find it out for ourselves.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: I rise merely because the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has dragged my name into the Debate. Every point I made has been answered by the right hon. Gentleman. We now know—and I hope that it has been made quite clear—that there is no connection whatever between the board under Part I and the arrangements made under this Part. Unfortunately, I cannot go back and discuss what was said earlier in the Debate, but with regard to the last point—although it is not for me to answer for the right hon. Gentleman—most hon. Members on this side of the Committee were perfectly aware that, in so far as it was an estimable figure, the cuts were to be restored as far as the Government could control them. They could control the restoration of the cuts, but not up to the last point, the final figure. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not"?] Obviously, for many reasons which my right hon. Friend has given here, and for many more which hon. Members and I know perfectly well, it is impossible to give an accurate figure. It is somewhat unfair to drag in this analogy between the board in Part I and the present arrangement, and it has led to a misunderstanding, which the right hon. Gentleman has cleared up. The cuts, we on this side of the Committee understand, are being restored. We are challenged by hon. Members opposite because we are not jubilant. Why should we be, when the matter was settled last week? We do not want to go on being jubilant.
One final point is that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is entitled to talk about 3s. Hon. Members opposite are not so entitled to talk. Some hon. Members on these benches talked earlier about 3s. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of
Labour could not tell the whole truth at the time. Let us, however, be fair about this business all round. The general feeling on this side, as I understand it, is that the cuts are being restored in full, and if the hon. Member could point to specific cases—

Mr. A. BEVAN: Did the hon. Member hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he stated that transitional payments now being paid would not automatically carry with them a 10 per cent. restoration? Is not that ample evidence that they are not being restored in full?

Sir L. THOMPSON: The amount of transitional payment represents £41,000,000 per annum. Now we are making provision for about £3,750,000 for nine months. Without accurate computation, which I do not suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make, that is approximately 10 per cent.

Mr. BEVAN: Is it not a fact that the cost of restoring the cut to those who received transitional payments in 1931 would be £21,000,000? The Chancellor of the Exchequer will restore £4,000,000, still taking £16,000,000 from the unemployed.

Mr. LINDSAY: I do not want to dispute the matter with the hon. Member, but only to repudiate the suggestion that this is coming out of the fund, and that the Government are making no contribution at all.

Clause added to the Bill.

7.16 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: The new Clause, in the name of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. G. Hicks)—(Bates of Unemployment Benefit)—is out of order.

Mr. COVE: On a point off Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that I had an Amendment to the new Clause dealing with rates of benefit for persons under 16 years of age?

The CHAIRMAN: I paused and looked at the hon. Member before I put the Question "That the Clause be added to the Bill," but he did not rise. I may tell him now, however, that I have come to the conclusion that his Amendment is out of order.

Mr. COVE: I did not hear my name called. You went straight to the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. G. Hicks).

The CHAIRMAN: I can tell the hon. Member that was because after very careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that his Amendment is out of order.

Mr. COVE: In that case, I hope you will exonerate me for not rising in my place when I was not called.

Mr. G. HICKS: I was under the impression, Mr. Chairman, that you were going to take a manuscript Amendment which has been handed in, and that the new Clause in my name would automatically follow.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot do that as it is out of order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Before you leave this point, am I to understand that the Amendment in my name to increase the children's allowance from 2s. to 6s. is out of order?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: With all due respect, I should like to know on what grounds you have come to that decision?

The CHAIRMAN: On several grounds, one being that it has already been decided, in fact, twice decided, first, in the Committee stage when it was decided after a debate on Part I, and, secondly, when it was decided after a debate on Part II.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does that mean that the Amendment was out of order before it was put down on the Paper? I want to know whether those responsible for putting it down were at fault and whether it was out of order before it was even put down?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I do not understand the hon. Member. I cannot deal with an Amendment until it is on the Order Paper.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Was it a known fact at the time when it was put down that there was no need to put it down as it would not be called?

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is on the Order Paper. I am really sorry,
but I do not quite follow the hon. Member. The Amendment is on the Order Paper, it was not called, and I have stated the reason; because it is out of order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: My point is this: When was an Amendment of this descriptain in order? When it was being discussed by us at our party meeting, or when it was put down on the Order Paper? When, at any time in the process of the Bill, was an Amendment of this description in Order?

The CHAIRMAN: The particular Amendment now is out of order, because an Amendment to a similar effect has already been discussed and dealt with by the Committee.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Thank you.

Mr. LAWSON: I do not quite understand why a discussion on rates of benefit is out of order. We have not discussed that matter on the Clause or on an Amendment. May I ask you upon what grounds an Amendment dealing with an increase of the rates of benefit is out of order?

The CHAIRMAN: I thought that I had made the matter perfectly clear. The allowance to children has already been decided at an earlier stage by the Committee.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Certain contributions to be payable out of the Unemployment Fund.)

The contributions payable by and in respect of an insured contributor under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1924 to 1932, and the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1925 to 1932, shall, during such time as he fulfils the third statutory condition for the receipt of benefit, be payable out of the Unemployment Fund in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister after consultation with the Minister of Health.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The CHAIRMAN: I want to warn the hon. Member in regard to this new Clause. I am not sure about it, and it may be that I shall have to rule it out of order as being beyond the scope of the Bill. I do not want to do so until I have heard what the hon. Member has to say.

Mr. LAWSON: In 1982 an Act was passed which excluded great masses of the unemployed from certain benefits as the result of having been out of work for two years and nine months. At the present time, and in this Bill, the law is that persons are eligible for membership on the Unemployed Fund and for transitional benefit if they are contributors to national health insurance. The Act of 1932 excluded many persons from health and medical benefits, and, indeed, in many cases from pensions. The original estimate was 80,000; now it affects 125,000. The tragedy of it is that the great bulk of these people are concentrated in certain areas, and the new Clause which I am moving provides that these people shall be kept in benefit for national health purposes out of the Insurance Fund; they shall continue to have their medical benefit and sick benefit and pensions as a result of being kept in benefit out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Ever since the Act of 1932 great masses of people have been penalised and it would be a good thing if they could be put into benefit again. They will benefit under Part II of the Bill and be treated by the Public Assistance Board, but while they are getting assistance in this way they will be penalised in another way simply because they are unemployed. They get the benefit of State funds, but they are excluded from the benefits of national health insurance.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has satisfied me now that this can only be done by an amendment of the National Health Insurance Acts and not by an amendment of the Unemployment Bill.

Mr. LAWSON: I do not think that an amendment of the National Health Insurance Act is necessary. The new Clause proposes that persons shall be kept in benefit, so far as national health insurance is concerned, out of the Unemployment Fund, and it would not need any amendment of the National Health Insurance Acts at all. It is immaterial to an approved society so long as these people are getting benefit, and we say that this should come out of the Unemployment Fund. Originally when these persons were unemployed and had run out of benefit with their societies there was a system of franking, which went on for some years. The 1932 Act robbed them of the benefit of franking. It was
immaterial what happened so far as approved societies were concerned.

7.27 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): May I point out that franking was done by the Ministry of Labour acting as the agent for the Ministry of Health, and no cost fell on the Ministry of Labour Vote. We merely franked the cards for the Ministry of Health. This matter was considered in 1924 when the Unemployment Insurance Bill was before the House and it was then decided, when a similar proposal was discussed, that it was a matter for the Ministry of Health and not for the Ministry of Labour as the cost did not fall on the Ministry of Labour Vote.

7.28 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: That is what is in my mind. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is proposing to throw an expense on the Unemployment Fund which should be borne by the National Health Insurance Fund, and he has satisfied me that it is not merely a matter of machinery but a definite placing of this burden on the Unemployment Fund. In that way it is outside the scope of the Bill.

Sir L. THOMPSON: And is it not wrong for anyone to expect a contribution in regard to this out of the Unemployment Fund—

The CHAIRMAN: Order, order.

Mr. LAWSON: I contend that the point with regard to franking does not hold as the approved societies have accepted franking for years as keeping members within benefit. It was accepted for years by the approved societies, but the time came when they said they could not continue to carry the responsibility. The other point is more material. It is that the Clause puts an extra charge on the Unemployment Fund. But I do not see in what way it is a violation of the Money Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN: I believe I used the word "burden" instead of "charge." What I tried to explain was that the mere fact that the hon. Member was trying by this Clause to place a burden on the Unemployment Fund, and that burden feeing in respect of National Health Insurance, it was a matter which
should be dealt with in a National Health Insurance Bill and not in an Unemployment Insurance Bill. That was my point. The Clause is outside the scope of Unemployment Insurance.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendments as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit.)

Sub-section (2) of Section four of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1930, shall have effect as though the following were added at the end thereof:

or

(d) employment by an employer who is not in working agreement with the claimant's trade union;

Provided that an employer shall be deemed to have offered less favourable conditions if he does not comply with the terms of any agreement recognised by associations of employers and of employés in the same trade or industry or, failing any such agreement, does not observe the conditions generally recognised in the district by good employers.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause deals with the question of disputes. It is a matter which for years has claimed attention, and as a matter of fact various Parliaments have held that there was a good deal in the question of disputes to call for very serious consideration. In the earlier Acts the operation was automatic. If there was a dispute automatically payment of benefit was ruled out. Then I believe there was a Section which dealt with wages when there was a sort of area grievance. When the employer was seeking to get past what was a national agreement the men were granted unemployment benefit. Now we want definitely to narrow the scope of the principle, because it has been found in practice that agreements have been subtilely avoided. The Minister of Labour has always stated that he is it strong supporter of trade unionism, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry has expressed regret that collective bargaining was not carried out on a much larger scale. Everyone who knows anything about modern industry knows that there is wisdom in that saying. What we want to do in this new Clause is to make it impossible for employers to break through agreements and seek to out-manoeuvre other employers in the same industry.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I have followed very carefully what the hon. Member has said, but I think he is speaking from the wrong brief. I think his speech relates to a new Clause which appears earlier on the Paper and was not moved. The hon. Member has spoken of a Section which appeared in earlier legislation. A Section very much like a Clause which is on the Paper but has not been moved, was in earlier legislation, but was repealed. The new Clause that he is now moving has never been in earlier legislation and is quite new. I was hoping the hon. Member would explain the reason for the new Clause in order to enable me to reply.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I think I was on solid ground when I said that this Clause embodies practically the same principle as that in other sections in previous legislation. It is a principle that has been to some extent accepted by the Ministry of Labour. The proviso states:
Provided that an employer shall be deemed to have offered less favourable conditions if he does not comply with the terms of any agreement reorganised by associations of employers and of employees in the same trade or industry or, failing any such agreement, does not observe the conditions generally recognised in the district by good employers.
That proviso is merely the principle of the Fair Wages Clause, which is operated by various Government Departments. I do not see how there can be any objection to accepting & principle of that kind. The first part of the Clause definitely refers to the terms of any agreement. I should think that if workmen have to be subjected to the dispute Clauses there is good reason for asking that they should be safeguarded by a Clause of this kind. It is in line with all experience in modern industry, particularly where collective agreements operate. In fact the Ministry of Labour is about to give affect to its opinions on the same lines as this Clause in connection with collective agreements in Lancashire, and I shall be in the position of having to congratulate the Ministry when that has been done. The Clause asks that men shall not be penalised where there is a dispute in which the employers seek to evade agreements. I hope the Minister will give very
sympathetic consideration to the proposal, which is not new and not revolutionary.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I wish to support the new Clause. The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that the new Clause is slightly different from anything that has been in any previous Act dealing with Unemployment Insurance. I would remind him that the principle is almost the same as that in the 1924 Act. It is true that the Section of the 1924 Act was repealed, I believe by the 1927 Act. It was inserted in the 1924 Act because a good many disputes were taking place in which Section 8 of the 1920 Act was working very adversely against the workers. In 1924 Parliament thought that wherever men were affected in a trade dispute by the employers breaking an agreement between the employers association and the trade union, the workmen should not be debarred from receiving unemployment benefit. It has often been said that Parliament can make laws and that those who sit in a judicial capacity can drive a coach and horses through them. We found that when we had a case under the 1924 Act which went to the Umpire. Suppose that a colliery company is attempting to get a reduction, and when negotiations break down and the men are thrown out of work a case goes to the Umpire. The Umpire rules that a price list is a local agreement that does not come within the Section of the 1924 Act. That has left the position something like this: If a colliery company asked for 4d. or 6d. a ton off the price list and men were thrown out of work, and the Umpire deemed that to be a trade dispute, no unemployment insurance benefit was paid at all, but if the employers sought to pay 31 per cent. instead of 32 per cent., and the men were thrown out of work, in that case they would receive, and in some cases did receive, unemployment benefit.
It is true that in 1927 Parliament repealed that Section. What has been the position since? There have been innumerable disputes in the mining industry in connection with which men have been refused benefit because it has been held that those disputes came within Section 8 of the 1920 Act. In my opinion in those cases the men ought to have received
benefit. In some cases employers of labour through colliery managers have sought reductions of wages which they knew were unjustified. They have even threatened that if the men did not agree they would do their best to prevent the men getting benefit, by having the dispute defined as a trade dispute within the meaning of the Act.
Here is an opportunity of trying to restore the law on this point to what it was in 1924. Anybody with experience in trade union negotiations knows what is taking place. In my constituency there is a pit in which work has been resumed after a 26 weeks' stoppage which was defined as a trade dispute. Consequently no unemployment benefit is being paid to any of the workers, except certain people who were deemed to be outside the dispute. Many of these men have gone back to work with the feeling that Unemployment Insurance legislation is weighted in favour of the employer. There ought to be in this Bill a Clause dealing with such a position as that. In Lancashire we hope the Government will succeed in getting a ratification of their proposals to prevent any employer from under-cutting the employers' organisation. We hope that many hon. Members opposite who have knowledge of that matter will give this new Clause their consideration. The clear intention of Parliament in the 1920 Act was to hold the balance evenly between the two sides favouring neither the employer nor the worker. If an employer is seeking wages or conditions below those prevailing in the same industry and if a dispute takes place and men are thrown out of work, that ought not to be deemed a trade dispute within the terms of Section 8 of the 1920 Act. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will see their way to support the new Clause.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I am in some difficulty about the proposed new Clause. I believe that there is a genuine point of grievance in the minds of a great many trade unionists as to this matter, and yet I believe that this hew Clause, as drafted and presented to us, would not obtain the effect desired. Furthermore, the body who would be entrusted with the task of deciding all technical points in these trade disputes would be the
court of referees which was not intended for any such purpose. The history of this question is a very simple but a rather interesting one. A provision of this kind was introduced in the 1924 Act. It was first proposed by a private Member in Committee and was defeated. It was then accepted on the Report stage, but, if the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) will look up the remarks made by Mr. Tom Shaw on that occasion, he may be surprised to find that Mr. Shaw was not at all certain as to how it would work in practice. On the recommendation of the Blanesburgh Committee it was omitted from the 1927 Act. It was not reincluded in the Act passed by the late Labour Government in 1930, and in the Report of the Royal Commission there is no recommendation at all that it should be reincluded.
Yet there is no doubt about the fact that on certain occasions some employers will start reductions of wages with the result that there will be stoppages of work, and benefit will be withheld from men for that reason. Therefore, I would like to see some provision included in this Measure to remedy such a state of things. Nobody wants to see cases of that kind arising. But, as I have pointed out, under this Clause it is the court of referees which is to decide to whom a stoppage is due. Is that really a job for the court of referees? Furthermore, would it not be possible under this Clause for an employer to break away from his employers federation and to be at liberty then to reduce his wages and cause a dispute, as the result of which the men would not be entitled to benefit, while the employer would have acted legally? It strikes me that the machinery of the proposed new Clause is the wrong machinery for this purpose. I disagree with the hon. Members who have put it forward in the method which they propose to remedy what is undoubtedly a grievance.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: The proposed new Clause raises a matter of real importance at the present moment. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) in instancing disputes in the coal industry, is on a subject of which I have a little knowledge but I would prefer to approach this question from the angle of another important and
allied industry, namely, the steel industry. The steel industry has just commenced a much happier era, so far as employment and the general improvement of the industry is concerned. That is largely because it has undertaken a sweeping reorganisation—I do not like the word "rationalisation"—which has resulted in the merging and grouping of a great many firms. We are faced to-day with a situation which is very different from that existing in 1920 when the Act to which the hon. Member referred was passed into law. If only for that reason, there is considerable point in the argument that something should be done to protect the insured contributor from anything which could be interpreted as unfair pressure in matters of this kind.
We are now engaged in consolidating and revising the whole system of Unemployment Insurance. I am hopeful that industrial relations in this country are about to enter upon a happier phase. I hope the recovery of the country, which has now definitely commenced, may not be retarded by serious industrial disputes from which no one suffers more than the worker. I am anxious that we should devise machinery for avoiding such disputes. Therefore, while I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) that this Clause is scarcely drafted in the right way to achieve that desirable end yet I hope the Government will give serious consideration to devising machinery which will prevent the victimisation or undue pressure of workers in any industry, during this time of recovery, should any dispute occur. Perhaps the Government between now and the Report stage will give consideration to finding a form of words which would accomplish the real intention of the proposed new Clause.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: This subject of disqualification in respect of trade disputes is one of the most difficult with which we have to deal in unemployment insurance legislation. It is true, as the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has said, that a Clause analogous to the proposed new Clause was inserted in the Act of 1924, but a person who has, as everyone will agree, a great deal of practical knowledge and experience in these matters, namely, Mr. Tom Shaw, the then
Minister of Labour, viewed the insertion of that Clause—which did not appear in the first draft of the Measure—with great misgiving and expressed doubt as to its results. We had three years experience of the working of the Clause and the Blanesburgh Committee, on which Miss Bondfield served, unanimously recommended that the Clause should be omitted and it was omitted in the Act of 1927. I do not wish to go back on anything I have said in the past regarding the desirability of collective agreements. I believe there is general agreement on that point but I venture to suggest to the Committee that this new Clause is not the best way of getting what we all desire.
The view of the Government is that industrial agreements should carry their own sanctions and that the statutory authorities under the Unemployment Insurance Acts should not be put into what has always proved to be the invidious position of having to intervene in and decide upon the merits of industrial disputes. We think that the statutory authorities should, as far as possible, remain outside these disputes in order that their impartiality may not be called in question. We should much prefer to see other arrangements made for the settling of these disputes. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street mentioned that we were shortly to introduce a Bill dealing with one portion of the cotton industry. I cannot of course anticipate the provisions of that Bill, but I hope when the hon. Member sees its terms he will agree that we have succeeded in devising for this very problem an appropriate remedy which would not involve the difficulties attaching to this new Clause.
This new Clause is not in the same form as the provision in the Act of 1924, and I think that when hon. Members opposite think over in detail what its results would be, they must agree that as it stands the new Clause would not work. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), who has a more detailed knowledge of colliery conditions than I have, said he was anxious to see that men were not forced by the withdrawal of benefit into accepting conditions from one employer which were less favourable than conditions ordinarily prevalent in the district.
In Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1330, which the hon. Member's own party carried through, it is provided that a man cannot be penalised for refusing employment
in his usual occupation in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower or on conditions less favourable than those which he might reasonably have expected to obtain, having regard to those which he habitually obtained in his usual occupation in that district or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed.
That is the law for which my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street was responsible. It meets the point of the hon. Member for Normanton to the extent of covering the case where an individual employer is endeavouring to get men to work for less favourable rates than those in the district. He may quite well say that it does not meet the case where the whole of the employers in a big district do this, nor would the new Clause that he suggests, and that is really the defect of the Clause.
It has two other practical difficulties. Let us assume, for example, that a man has been out of work for a long time in Durham and has been trained as a motor mechanic, say, at Wallsend. This Clause would enable him to refuse to take a job with Fords on the ground that the Miners' Federation in Durham, of which he was a member, had no agreement with the Ford Motor Works at Dagenham. Obviously that is not one of the objects of the hon. Members opposite. It would also enable a member of any one union, where there were two rival unions—a case that is not unknown—and where one of them had an agreement with their employer, to refuse to accept a job with that employer merely because he had an agreement with the rival union, and still draw benefit. I could enlarge the list of examples, but I have every sympathy with the object of the Clause. I believe that when hon. Members opposite see the Bill that we are going, I hope, to introduce shortly, they will realise that we have gone a very long way to find a satisfactory alternative to this procedure. I hope, therefore, they will not press this new Clause to a Division.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: I have listened with great interest to the Parliamentary Secretary's illustrations as to how a person could be disqualified under the proposed
new Clause, and I presume, judging by what he said, that he had not exhausted the possibilities of illustration, but that would be equally true of nearly everything else that we try to do. The facts are that in the general experience of the application of the present position, a number of workmen are so disqualified, and appeals to courts of referees and to umpires have to be lodged, at great cost in money and time, in order to establish a workman's right to benefit. I was very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the Government have every sympathy with the object of the Clause, and I should have thought, therefore, it would have been possible to employ some language that would have made it as general as possible and as specific as desirable without making it too cumbersome. There are, in the application of trade union practice, a number of people who come into an in-nothing, so far as helping to build updustry quite fresh, who have done its general character, standards of employment, rates of wages, and so on, are concerned, who have been fortunate enough perhaps to have had some money left them with which to start an industry, and who, regardless of the whole lifetime experience of those who have been employed in the industry, attempt to violate the conditions that have been established in it. It is with a view to trying to give some recognition to the great cost in money, time and labour, and to the patience and experience that have helped to build up the standard codes in an industry, that we are desirous of inserting some such Clause as this.
This country is the richest in the world in having built up codes of labour with regard to rates of wages, hours of employment, and general conditions, and there is hardly any industry in this country that has not got some established form of organisation under which employers and workpeople meet together periodically, tabulate their claims, and usually by negotiation are able to establish some standard of economic relationship that shall exist in the industry. The hon. Member who preceded the Parliamentary Secretary said he hoped that with the present indicated revival in industry we should have the best of relationships possible between employers and employed, and I am sure we are all
desirous of that, but while we have a Fair Wages Clause in this House, which is not, in my opinion, up to date—it is not a subject for Debate now, but we shall try to make it more up to date at a subsequent date—even that Clause is not being observed in a number of places, and the illustration of a Durham miner trained as a mechanic at Wallsend and going to Dagenham is not a correct illustration. It is not so much a question of an agreement with the Miners' Federation, as it is that the individual working in that particular industry would have subscribed to the conditions that were negotiated for the general conduct of that industry.

Mr. HUDSON: I was dealing with the words of the new Clause, and they are definitely open to the construction that I put upon them.

Mr. HICKS: My point is the desirability of encouraging, recognising, and stabilising, as far as practicable, the arrangements that are existing between workpeople and their employers in regard to the ordinary conduct of industry, and there are so many of them that are violated. Organisations spend thousands and thousands of pounds, and if I were to say that our building industry spends anything between £60,000 and £70,000 a year in sending men round to see that agreements which have been negotiated are observed, I should be stating what is less than the actual cost on the workpeople's side, let alone on the employers' side. They are constantly coming into contact with violations of conditions that have been set up. I was hoping that when the Parliamentary Secretary expressed sympathy with the new Clause, something would be done to give encouragement to employers and to workpeople on these lines and discouragement to those who do not observe agreements and codes that have been arrived at.
The building industry is a very old industry—next, I suppose, to agriculture—and it is an industry that has been more responsible for civilisation, I imagine, than almost any other industry. But the number of people who come into that industry and think they can violate the hours of labour, the overtime conditions, and so on, and even the question of apprentices, is astonishing. They say,
"We do not want to be bound by the rules set up by this group of people. Let us go on our own. We want to work after dark, and we want to help the country." They say that, though of course their main object is to help themselves. A trade unionist, providing he wants to work for such an employer, would immediately come into conflict with his union, and that union, recognising the need for maintaining standards of decency, would impose a penalty on him if he failed to observe its conditions. On the other hand, if he failed to work upon the particular job, he would be disqualified for benefit. I know there is no disqualification if a trade dispute exists, but on these other things many violations can take place, and workpeople desirous of honouring their agreements and their association with their organisation, and not responding to the invitation of employers who are either too mean or not sufficiently interested to take part in their own organisations and to assist in framing a code of labour conditions, are immediately disqualified.
I hope the Ministry will give another look at this matter. Our experience has been that it has been very costly in appeals to referees and umpires, and we would have regarded this Clause as being so fair, so right, and proper that it should have received an immediate blessing from the Ministry. I do not know what the Clause indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary in the new Bill will be, but I hope the Minister will give another look at this matter and see if it is not possible either to alter the words of our Clause or to draw up a fresh Clause that would give practical effect to our mutual desire to respect, regard, stabilise, and encourage honest agreements that have been arrived at between workpeople and their employers.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: Why is it impossible, in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has apparently already arrived at a formula which is satisfactory in respect to the cotton industry, to let us have the benefit of a similar formula for the purpose of carrying into effect what is intended by the proposed new Clause now under discussion? We all know the difficulties in the way of wording Amendments, but in this instance there is much to be said for the new Clause, apart from
any irregularities that may exist in its actual wording. In these circumstances, in view of the fact too that the Parliamentary Secretary has intimated that he agrees with the contentions that have been raised, and in view particularly of the fact mentioned by the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) that tremendous sums of money are spent in order that justice may be done in respect of people who would come within the purview of such a Clause, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will not give us an assurance that he will at a later stage produce some Amendment which will meet the difficulties that have been raised in this debate? I think we can all say that we agree that something should be done in this matter, but we do not know what is coming in the Cotton Bill. It may be that it will be an excellent precedent for something to be contained in this Bill, and in those circumstances I cannot see why we should not have the advantage of knowing now what type of Amendment is to be inserted so as to provide for the points that have been raised in this discussion.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to press the appeal that has been made to the Parliamentary Secretary, because this is a very serious affair in so far as engineering is concerned. But before I mention engineers I might advance further points with regard to the building industry, because it is more serious than the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) has stated. In the steelworks it is a very serious matter indeed, because you have bricklayers who have worked at nothing else but building smelting furnaces, which is a very hot job that generally devolves on men who have practically given their lives to this business. Just at the moment, in quite a number of steelworks, there is a great amount of unemployment, and those men are out.
According to the Government they may be back at work at any time, because we are round the corner now and are going to be busy, particularly in the key industries—so we are told by the highest authorities. If the new Clause is not accepted, the Employment Exchange manager will have power to send that type of man, who has always been in the
habit of working on hot inside jobs to housing schemes. The man I have in mind is about 50 years of age and there is a number of them in every steel works. They simply cannot go out on to housing schemes. We want the Minister to remember that, although they are unemployed, they are free men and have a right to some consideration instead of being driven to any job no matter how onerous or distasteful.
The engineers will be hit very badly if the new Clause is not inserted. Take the shipyard and marine engineers of Newcastle, for instance. A great number of them are unemployed. They have worked at practically nothing but marine engineering; they are a distinct class and have a certain standard of life and wages which is higher than that of the mechanic employed about the mines. The work at the mines is distasteful to them and they detest the idea of having to be mine mechanics. Some of them will face anything except face such a job because it is distasteful and means a reduction in wages of about 5s. a week. We should have some regard for these men and not play a high-handed part with them because they happen to be unemployed. They have rendered yeoman service to the country, and the Government should not condemn them just because of the unique circumstances of unemployment. It is not their fault that they are unemployed. They are not criminals, but victims, and they ought to be treated with justice and respect.
The same holds good with the engineers in Cardiff, Swansea and Bristol; they have never worked at anything but repairs. Such men must be highly skilled and they have a special rate of wages from 15s. to £1 a week more than if they worked at the mines in Wales. Apart from the reduction of wages which it means, a job at the mines is abhorred by these men. They have never been trained for the job. The workers for whom we are appealing are our fellow countrymen. We are appealing for the workers in general, who have a feeling that they have rights and a bit of manhood left in them, and they still claim the right to say "No" when sent to a particular job. They should not be reduced to the position of taking any job. They still have independence of mind, a quality which is supposed to be the outstanding characteristic of the British
race. The conditions of the times are gradually crushing that out. It is to the interest of the Government and the country to safeguard that type of man.
We want to give the unemployed men the rights that they used to have when they were looking for a job—the right to say that they did not want it. We are not appealing for foreigners. We are appealing for the men who have rendered their quota to make this country what it is. Some say it is the richest country on which the sun ever shone—the mightiest and the greatest. We are appealing for men who have struggled and strived in their work. This Amendment will affect the best type of worker. He may have given service to the country, as a workman, for 30 years. If he had given all those years' service in the Army or the Navy he would receive a pension. But he has been a workman in the workshops. He is the type of individual who has made all things possible, who has produced everything, who has made it possible for the civil servants and teachers and the men of the Army and the Navy and all the others to get pensions. The worker is the producer of all. All wealth is produced by labour, and whoever enjoys wealth without working for it is stealing the bread of the worker. That is the type of man for whom we are appealing here.
I know personally many men who will be badly hit by this legislation. They are independent men, and when Employment Exchanges were first started they declined to go to them; but I have seen those men so crushed that they were glad to go to the Employment Exchange, and I have seen them crushed further until they were glad to go to the public assistance committee for help. Now a further screw is being put on that decent type of worker. All his life he has followed a particular occupation, and is not fitted for any other occupation, but the Government are giving power to the manager of an Employment Exchange to say to that man, "You are to have no say where you go—no matter whether it is a trade union shop or not, no matter what difficulties you will be up against with your trade union, no matter whether this job will be bad for your health, no matter what the distance is and the expenses of travelling to which you will be put." Scotland is affected by this
legislation, and the weather is often very inclement in Scotland, and these are folks who go out in the early morning and do not return until dewy eve. It is no uncommon thing for miners now to travel 8, 10 or 15 miles a day to their work.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Member is saying may he very true, but I fail to see how it can affect the question of whether this new Clause should be agreed to or not.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am trying to get the Committee to understand the position from the point of view of the workers. I want the worker to have the same right as you and I have, Captain Bourne, that if a thing does not suit us we will not do it. Are we to forget that this is the land of the brave and the free? Free Britons. Where are the free Englishmen? Representatives of Parliament may be free; I want the workers to be as free. But we are here taking freedom from them. The right to say whether they will accept a job or not is what is at stake here, and, therefore, I think I am perfectly in order in the line I am taking in trying to safeguard the workers. From the flippant way in which this is being dealt with, one would think there was nothing at stake, but when a man goes to the Employment Exchange the manager will have power to say to him, "You will take a job at Park Head Forge," or "You will take a job at Brown's in Clyde Bank, or Singer's." The man may have no knowledge of the work that is being done there. These men are good tradesmen, not men who are in, work to-day and out of work tomorrow, and yet they could be sent to work at certain places where they would lose all the dignity they possess from the feeling that they are good men at their own job. That is a serious thing, because it is most important for the welfare of the country that our workers should have a good notion of themselves, should have some respect for themselves, and when they know that they will not be able to give a good account of themselves at the job to which they are being sent they have a right to say, "No, this job does not suit me, and I would rather not go." That is a right for which our forefathers fought, and we ought not to surrender it but to safeguard it.
I know perfectly well from my own experience that this will depend on the manager of the Exchange. As far as the managers in the Employment Exchanges in my Division go, I get on very well with them.

Viscountess ASTOR: You would get on with anybody.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We have no Tight to leave the law in that condition. We are-sent here to defend the working-class. The Noble Lady asks me, "Defend them from what?" Defend them from her class.

Viscountess ASTOR: From their leaders.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We are sent here to defend the working-class, and, if we do not do that, we do not do our duty. We are making laws, and we have to make them so that it is not left to an individual to read into them anything other than we wish. We have no right to leave these matters to the good will of any individual. It is trotted out to us that if we could only get the people of good will together we could do wonderful things, but that always pre-supposes that other fellows are of bad will. I do not believe a word of that. All the good will in the world has not saved us from the terrible conditions in which we are to-day.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I still do not quite see how the hon. Member associates his present argument with the proposed new Clause. The effect of the Clause is that if a man is to be offered employment it shall be employment by an employer who has a working agreement with the man's trade union, and that if the employer does not comply with the terms of any agreement recognised by associations of employers and of employés in the trade or industry, that is not suitable employment. The hon. Member is going far outside what the Clause can possibly imply.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You may rest assured, Captain Bourne, that I have no desire to disobey your Ruling. I have made out my case, because you just got up when I was finished. Representing the engineers of Britain, I felt that it was very important, and my duty to state their case. We have been up against those difficulties time and time again.
Without further ado, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have due regard to the facts which I have stated and which are irrefutable. He cannot get over them by merely being nice and pleasant. We cannot get over them by being pleasant; it is not pleasant to the folk upon whose behalf I am speaking. Their Jives are not very pleasant.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I have listened to the Debate, and I was very anxious, before the Parliamentary Secretary replied, to know what his reply would be. An hon. Member behind him, a supporter of the National Government, had spoken on the same lines, indicating that he would like something of the sort proposed in this proposed Clause to be incorporated in the Bill, because of difficulties with which he had met, but that this Clause would not meet the situation. That was the argument put by the Parliamentary Secretary, and it was not open opposition. He indicated a certain amount of sympathy with the principles underlying the Clause, but he indicated that it would not carry out the purpose for which it was designed. I am not quite sure about that. He also indicated that they were trying to grapple with the matter in order to embody the principle with which we are concerned. That does not affect the immediate present.
I am more concerned with getting something into the present Bill as soon as possible, in order to deal with very difficult cases that crop up. As a trade union official, I have been in direct contact with some of the cases affected, and which are ruled out, although, in my opinion, it was never intended that they should be ruled out. The Measure is not sufficiently wide to cover them. The number of those cases is much greater than people imagine. I have had to go to the referees' courts time after time, and there you find that if a man has been sent to an employer to work and the terms of employment are not in accordance with his trade union agreement or such as the district agreements demand, and the man refuses, saying, "I cannot work under these conditions," in nine cases out of ten—I do not think that I am exaggerating—the employer, when asked to make a statement, takes refuge by marking the man's papers, "Stopped owing to
misconduct." That happens in nearly every case, and it is the most difficult to prove to the satisfaction of the referees' court that the man has not been guilty of misconduct. The onus of proof is always put upon the man. The employer generally gets away with it. In a good many cases, if the employer is asked to substantiate what he has said, he contents himself with repeating what he formerly said, or refuses to say anything more about it. He is not compelled to go to the court and give evidence in support of his statement that he put upon the paper. Unless the workers have with them to put their case expert persons who have full knowledge of the agreements of the districts, in the majority of cases the man or woman concerned is at a very great disadvantage. That is why I am particularly anxious that something shall be put into the Bill.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) has made a very interesting contribution to the Debate. I would like him to elaborate the point a little further. He stated what happens before the referees when an employer has said that a man has been guilty of misconduct, and the employer refuses to substantiate his accusation. I assume that in every one of those cases the man is allowed benefit. I am not certain, but, if the man has no expert advice, he would be very anxious. I wonder if the hon. Member would quote a case? It is very serious.

Mr. PALING: I will give one or two general cases to illustrate the point. If there is any sympathy for our claim on the part of the National Government or their supporters, any question as to whether the words on the paper meet the situation ought not to prevent the Government from putting in something that does meet the situation. The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to substantiate. Let me give him a case in point that is happening now. Machinery has come into the pits—

Mr. HUDSON: Will the hon. Member answer the two points that I put to him?

Mr. PALING: I am coming to that. Machinery has come into the pits, and there is now a great tendency on the part of employers to make men work overtime, as we think in contravention of our
agreements. If a man finds that he is expected to work overtime on the conveyors or the machine face, and if, thinking it is in contravention of the agreement between the union and the employers, he refuses to do so, he is probably stopped, and in cases like that he has the greatest difficulty in proving that he has been stopped genuinely because it was his belief that, if he had kept on working, he would have been contravening the existing agreement.
To give another case, there is in operation in pits, not only in Yorkshire but in various other counties, a system known as the butty system—a sort of subcontract system. The trade unions, after years of labour and effort and toil, eventually succeeded in breaking down the system and getting an agreement, but there have been cases here and there where individual men have been sent to work under that system. If they did so, they would have actually earned more wages than if they had stuck to the agreement, but they would have been breaking a distinct agreement, and in such cases, if they refuse to work, and if something is put on their papers stating, not that they have refused to break an agreement, but some other reason—generally, as I have said, misconduct—in those cases they have the greatest difficulty in proving their case unless they have someone to represent them. Again, a case came under my notice last week in which a motor employer wanted his employé to work overtime on a Saturday. There is a general agreement—I do not know the terms precisely—that after certain hours and under certain conditions overtime rates shall be paid. This employer would not pay the overtime rate, and the man in question was stopped and did not get his benefit; he has been disqualified for six weeks, but an appeal is pending.
That is another instance of what is happening in this direction. A further one, which has arisen recently, is in connection with the method of alteration of work in a pit. It was agreed between the men and the colliery company concerned that the coal should be got by a particular method, but the colliery company suddenly wanted it got by another method. They were prepared to pay the
standard rate of wages and work the ordinary hours, but it would have been against the local agreement made between men and masters. The men refused, and were stopped. They eventually got their pay, but we had the greatest difficulty in proving their case. The difficulty is generally due to the fact that usually only two things are recognised by the court of referees—whether the agreed rates of wages are paid, and whether the hours are in accordance with the agreement. All other questions besides these two are generally very difficult to prove before the courts of referees, and we feel that, if the Bill stated definitely that other considerations which may be incorporated in agreements are included besides wages and hours, it would make the position of most of these people who have to go before courts of referees much easier than it has been in the past, or is now, or can possibly be while the Act remains as it is.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I do not want to delay the Committee, but the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) has, probably unconsciously, made some very serious charges in the course of his speech. Briefly, the effect of them is that, under the law as it stands at present, the courts of referees do not give a man substantial justice. I asked the hon. Member two specific questions. He did not answer them, but went on to give some mere impressions. He has not given a single specific case of what he alleges. He stated that he had a number of cases in which men had had difficulty in getting unemployment benefit, but went on to say that the unemployment benefit was allowed. What, then, is his complaint? There is nothing in the Bill that prevents substantial justice being done to a man, even on the hon. Member's own showing, because the man has got his benefit. The hon. Member went on to suggest that, when a man came before a court of referees, the employer, instead of admitting that he had been breaking an agreement, accused the man of misconduct. I asked him if he could give me a case. The normal procedure of the court of referees, sitting in a judicial capacity, is that, if the employer makes an accusation and does not support it,
the court naturally gives the man the benefit of the doubt, and allows him benefit.
The hon. Member has had much more practical experience of courts of referees than I have, and he knows perfectly well that, so far as the miners of this country are concerned, they are very well represented before the courts of referees, and do not suffer at all from the way in which their cases are handled. Moreover, not only have members of trade unions the advantage of being able to be represented by officials before the courts of referees, with the right of appeal, but the ordinary non-unionist equally has his case reviewed by an independent statutory authority, namely, the insurance officer, who goes through the verdict of the court of referees with great care, and whose duty it is, so far as he can, to see that no miscarriage of justice takes place; and, if he thinks there is any doubt, the matter is placed before the Umpire. I honestly think, so far as I have been able to make out, that the hon. Member has no case at all of injustice having actually been done. It is a matter of apprehension, no doubt, but I have not heard any actual case quoted in which it can be suggested that the law as it stands to-day causes any real injustice, and I think I showed in my earlier speech that, whatever might be the desire of hon. Members, the actual wording of the Clause is faulty. I went on to say that, while we thoroughly agree that agreements are desirable, those agreements should in our opinion contain their own sanction, and that such sanction ought not to be applied through an Unemployment Insurance Bill. If it is right to have proper sanctions, let there be proper sanctions, but let us not use a Bill like this for the purpose of applying them.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: With regard to the question of piece-work and piece-workers, I have been intimately interested in an industry which has recognised in the past, not only time work, but in a certain degree piece-work as well, and, while the wording of this proposed new Clause may appear to be faulty, it would seem to me,

as I read it, to cover a point which gives rise to great trouble, particularly in the furniture industry in Scotland. Hitherto in Scotland we have countenanced a certain amount of departure from time conditions. In some of the shops piece-work conditions are applied. This is under cover of a specific agreement. There are shops which conform to this new departure which are not in the Masters' Federation, yet they speak reasonably and honourably of the arrangement. The arrangement is that piece conditions in the shop shall be determined by a repetition job being performed by three different average men or, failing that, on three different occasions by the same man.
We find that there are establishments which do not apply this regulation, or agreement, but are inclined to indulge in the practice of having a man who receives special consideration and arrangements in the shop which permit him to claim that the piece conditions allow him the time rate to be made by the average men. In point of fact, when persons are sent there by the exchanges, they find, and generally know before they go, if they do go, that the piece conditions are arbitrary conditions made by the employer before they enter the shop, and, naturally, they fail to come up to the expectation that they held when they entered of making the time rate and so conforming to the general conditions applied even by unorganised employers in the district. This would appear to me to help the efforts that are being made not only on behalf of trade unions but in protection of the employers to off-set this bad type of employer who takes advantage. There is one other point with regard to the type of shop which indulges in this practice. We have seen men who have gone into shops of this type, and, having been there, and that being the last point of employment, good shops have refused to take them because of the stigma attaching itself to men who have been in shops of this type. There are specific cases the details of which can be proved.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time".

The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 234.

Daggar, George
John, William
Parkinson, John Allen


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Rathbone, Eleanor


Dobble, William
Lawson, John James
Rea, Walter Russell


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert
Thorne, William James


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
White, Henry Graham


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Wood, sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Harris, Sir Percy
Maxton, James
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jenkins, Sir William
Paling, Wilfred
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Martin, Thomas B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Apsley, Lord
Gower, Sir Robert
Meller, Sir Richard James


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rPd. N.)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, William P. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Baille, Sir Adrian W. M.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Milne, Charles


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Grimston, R. V.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Melson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moreing, Adrian C.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Hales, Harold K.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Borodale, Viscount
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Munro, Patrick


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nunn, William


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Broadbent, Colonel John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peat, Charles U.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hepworth, Joseph
Penny, Sir George


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Petherick, M.


Burghley, Lord
Hornby, Frank
Pike, Cecil F.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Horsbrugh, Florence
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Burnett, John George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Carver, Major William H.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rankin, Robert


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leotric
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Conant, R. J. E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Remer, John R.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles Montrose)
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Law Sir Alfred
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Leckie, J. A.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Croom-Johnson, R. P. 
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross, Ronald D.


Cross, R.H




Crossley, A. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lewis, Oswald
Runge, Norah Cecil


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Liddall, Walter S.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dickie, John P.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Salt, Edward W.


Drewe, Cedric
Llewellin, Major John J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Duggan, Hubert John
Loftus, Pierce C.
Scone, Lord


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Selley, Harry R.


Dunglass, Lord
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Elmley, Viscount
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
McKie, John Hamilton
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waller D.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Somerset, Thomas


Fox, Sir Gifford
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Maitland, Adam
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Soper, Richard



Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision for cultivators of small holdings.)

When an unemployed person of the insured class undertakes the cultivation of a small holding with the object of making a livelihood, he shall, during the first twelve months of his tenancy or such shorter period as may be decided upon, be eligible for benefit, subject to the approval of the Minister of Labour.—[Sir T. Rosbotham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.8 p.m.

Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to give encouragement to unemployed persons to undertake the cultivation of small holdings. The Lancashire County Council passed a resolution to admit 100 land settlers, and up to date about SO unemployed men have been set up in these settlements. We have had no difficulty up to the present time in finding suitable men with sufficient capital, but now we are coming to the end of such applicants, and we are finding that men have not sufficient capital. Some of them may have a little capital, and some probably have none, but they have the ability to cultivate a small holding. This new Clause has been moved largely at the instigation of Sir George Etherton, Clerk of the Lancashire County Council, who takes a great interest in this movement. There is no doubt whatever that there are a large number of unemployed men who are anxious to go on to the land if they could get financial assistance. There are great possibilities in these days for men to make a living on the land. We have proof of the fact in the County of Lancaster, and anyone who paid a visit to the exhibition of the Royal Horticultural Society last week will be convinced of the great possibilities of growing fine produce in this country.
The Land Utilisation Act no doubt would have supplied the want at the
present time, but it is not in operation, and this Clause will to some extent provide what is the necessity until the Government can see their way to put Part II of the Land Utilisation Act into operation. There are in various parts of the country to-day hives of industry where smallholders and land settlers are carrying on poultry keeping, glass farming, market gardening, and in other directions. I could give many instances where land settlement has been the means of increasing the number of men on the land. For instance, a friend of mine purchased a small farm of 33 acres in extent. At that time six persons were working on the farm. To-day there are 46 expert workmen on that 33 acres. That is sufficient proof and evidence that there are great possibilities in land settlement. We ought to use every endeavour to get men off the unemployment list and on to the land and into occupations where they would be perfectly happy and contented and able to make a living. In two cases unemployed mill hands in Darwen have been settled on two of the Lancashire County Council holdings. These tenants came out to thank me one day when I was round that way. They said, "Being out of work was breaking our hearts. We had saved a little but found it dwindling week by week, and now you have found us something that has brought us complete happiness and contentment, and we are earning a living."

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I beg to second the Motion.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I think the whole Committee has shown that they have very great sympathy with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir T. Rosbotham) in his desire to see the small holdings movement in this country encouraged, but we know that persons who ought to undertake the cultivation of small holdings are in need
of financial assistance in the early months, and it may well be desirable that such assistance should be provided by the State. The hon. Member, however, is asking in this Clause that the financial assistance should be provided out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund at the expense of the contributors to that fund, both the workmen and the employers. If you are to allow persons who set up in whole-time occupations on small holdings to draw money for the first year or so out of the fund to keep them going, there is no reason why you should not make the same concession to the person who wishes to set up as a small shopkeeper.

Sir T. ROSBOTHAM: Why not?

Mr. HUDSON: "Why not," says the hon. Member, but you could go on extending the principle indefinitely. If it is felt desirable that small holdings should be assisted, they should be assisted by a specific ad hocAct and not out of a fund set up for an entirely different purpose. If you assisted smallholders, as is suggested by this Clause, you would cut at the root of the whole principle of unemployment insurance. One of the most important qualifications of a man to receive benefit is that he should be unemployed and available for work. A man who is engaged on the full-time cultivation of a holding obviously is not available for work, and, if he were available for work and work were offered to him and he accepted it, it would break up his whole scheme of life on the small holding. I am talking about the full-time worker with whom this Clause deals. Therefore, although I have very great sympathy, as the hon. Member knows, with his proposal, because I recognise the very valuable work that has been done by the Lancashire County Council in promoting small holdings, with very great success, this Clause suggests that the cost should come out of the Unemployment Fund, and I must ask the Committee to reject it.

9.16 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I think the Minister has read into the Clause something that is not there. Obviously, a man would not be eligible for benefit under the provisions of the Bill if he refused a job when it was offered to him. Suppose he
was a cotton operative out of work and with his savings he took a small holding for himself and his family. The fact that he was a smallholder and still out of work should not deprive him of the same benefit as if he was standing still and being idle. If he was offered a job in a factory by the Employment Exchange and turned it down, he would immediately and automatically forfeit his benefit. Therefore, it is not fair for the Minister to say that this is a proposal to subsidise small holdings out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. There have been questions on this very point. As the law is interpreted at present, as soon as a man goes to a small holding and works it, he loses benefit that he would otherwise have. That, I most respectfully submit, is to penalise industry and to discourage a man from trying to make himself independent of the fund. If as a result of his success on the small holding he found his time fully occupied, and a job was offered to him, he would immediately go off the fund, and the fund would be saved temporarily from having to maintain him, and he would completely pass permanently out of the unemployment insurance system.
That is, I understand, the object of the new Clause. It is a most valuable new Clause, and I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary is not interpreting the real mind of the Government. The President of the Board of Trade stated in a recent unemployment Debate that it was part of the constructive policy of the Government to encourage men in derelict districts, mining districts, cotton districts, and so on, to cultivate land and become independent of the ordinary labour market. This new Clause is not a theoretical proposition. A good deal of work in this direction has already been done. It may surprise some hon. Members to learn that in a place called Bethnal Green we have a certain number of unemployed men occupying their spare time in poultry keeping and in the production of rabbits for their skins. I know of two cases where these men have gone off into Essex as a result of their training and experience and become small holders, their families helping to carry on the farm.
It would be reasonable in cases of that kind if the man was offered a job and turned it down that he should forfeit
benefit, but it does seem unwise from the point of view of a broad policy, in the interests of the State, that when he is not offered a job, when he registers every week at the Employment Exchange and presents himself for employment but cannot find it, then because he is trying to free himself from unemployment insurance and become independent of the State, he should lose his benefit. It is clear that in the early stages of cultivating a holding it is very difficult to a man to maintain himself and his family. Therefore, I think the Minister is taking a short-sighted policy against the interests of the State. It will defeat the object which the Government ought to have in view, namely, to draw off many men from the derelict districts, where there is no hope and no prospect for the future, and to help them to become self-sufficient and independent. I hope the Minister has not said the last word on this subject, and that he will persuade his right hon. Friend to discuss the matter with his colleagues, particularly with the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Agriculture, so that he can hold out some promise that on the Report stage a Clause of this kind will be inserted in the Bill.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I think the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) is under a misapprehension. This Clause deals specifically with whole-time smallholdings and I limited my remarks to that aspect of the problem. It refers to those who get their livelihood in. a smallholding, and that means full-time employment. In the case of part-time occupation on an allotment, poultry keeping, rabbit keeping and so forth, that is a matter which my right hon. Friend is doing his best to encourage, and it is greatly favoured by the Government. My right hon. Friend has been instrumental in getting a grant for the Society of Friends for helping on this work, which has resulted in the numbers of men assisted increasing from 50,000 to 150,000 and I hope that the number will be 200,000 this year. Therefore, we cannot be accused in any way of discouraging allotments or of discouraging in any way part-time cultivation, the raising of poultry or rabbits or anything like that, which would be a subsidiary occupation which the man could follow out of hours
and still pursue his ordinary work, when he has any. The new Clause deals with the question of full-time occupation on the land and I repeat that, however much we may desire to see such a policy adopted and fostered, the proper fund for that purpose is not the Unemployment Fund but a specific ad hoc fund set up for the purpose.

9.24 p.m.

Major HILLS: I see the difficulty of my hon. Friend and I appreciate it, but this Clause seems to me to have such hopefulness behind it that it is well worthy of consideration. I urge my hon. Friend to look at the limited character of the proposal. The Mover intended full-time employment upon the smallholding and the Minister has replied twice on that, and both his objections are strong ones which have to be met. His first objection is that you ought not to subsidise the smallholder out of the Unemployment Fund, because that would be unfair to the fund. Does he not think that it might be for the benefit of the fund, if for a short time, say, for 12 months, you took a man off the fund and start him in work which might mean that he would never come back on to the fund? I am not sure that it is not good business for the fund. Take a man of the kind of whom we have heard, in Durham; give him a smallholding there and give him that little start in money that all smallholders are bound to have. If in the meantime he has found work at his job, then he must forfeit his benefit. I entirely agree there. But do consider very carefully whether you are not doing the best for the fund by giving it a chance of getting rid of a man who may be a very heavy financial liability to it.
So much for my hon. Friend's first point. His second point was that it is a basic principle that a man should be out of work and available for employment. Assume that the man is out of work at his own trade, and you give him his smallholding and benefit for a year. All the time he is on that holding, if you can get him back to his trade, the man must forfeit his benefit. All the Mover asks is that, if it so happens for a year that he gets no chance of going back to his trade, he should then be able to start on the land. A great many people have tried to evolve some scheme whereby you could combine work with
the receipt of benefit, and all such schemes have been open to the objection that if you subsidise one sort of labour you tend to increase employment at that sort of labour at the expense of unsubsidised labour. Here, however, there is no objection of that sort. The man is not in the labour market, but stands on his own feet. Therefore, for both reasons, because it is a temporary payment and you may benefit the fund thereby, and because you do not want to put a subsidised man into the labour market with unsubsidised men, I should be very much relieved if the Minister would say that he would consider the Clause. I am quite certain that the Minister would like to see it in the Bill, and if he and the Minister of Agriculture put their two agile heads together, I believe that they could evolve a scheme.

9.28 p.m.

Commander COCHRANE: I wish to support the principle of the proposed new Clause. I would submit that the difficulty in which we appear to be arises in part from the fact that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to apply a different test to those who go on smallholdings from that which he would apply to those who return to ordinary industrial occupations. Take the case of a man who is unemployed; he is not bound to go back to an industrial job at a wage very much below the ordinary standard of the district in which he is employed. He is safeguarded against being forced off unemployment benefit because he refuses to take a job which is below the ordinary standard of the district in which he is working. But my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that these people on smallholdings had a full-time occupation. I submit that that is not the test. The real test is whether they are getting a reasonable return for their money. As I understand it, all that my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir T. Rosbotham) is asking is that, in the early days of their occupation of their smallholdings, when it is unlikely that they can, by their own efforts, get a reasonable return for their work, they should continue to receive unemployment benefit. I submit that that is in accordance with the ordinary practice of the fund. It would not be overstraining the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Fund to give
this benefit as long as the people concerned were not getting an adequate return for what would probably be the very hard work which they were putting into their smallholdings.
I should like to emphasise the point just made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), that it might result in a very considerable saving to the fund. I am certain that, from the point of view of national policy, there can be no doubt whatever of the benefit of getting men to work on smallholdings, whether they be whole-time or part-time. In that connection I would submit to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that in his reply he has not had regard to the old proposition that the greater includes the less. One can assume that if the Clause applied to whole-time holdings, it would certainly apply to every type of part-time holding.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: In that case it is not necessary, because at the present moment a man is entitled to pursue a subsidiary calling from which he obtains a profit or income not exceeding 3s. 4d. a day, provided that it can be pursued during the hours outside those of his normal employment. It is perfectly open to a man to-day to take up a part-time employment and continue to draw benefit as long as the holding is of such a size that he is able to continue to cultivate it when he is at work. The only new element in this Clause is the test of livelihood; in other words, the test of full-time occupation. There you are up against the statutory condition of benefit, that the man must be available for work. Obviously, the man is not available for work if he is engaged full time in agricultural pursuits. I fully sympathise with the desire of hon. Members to see smallholdings encouraged; I am very keen about it myself. You have, however, to remember that you are dealing with a system that covers 12,500,000 people, and, in order to administer the system, it has been found necessary to insist that one of the conditions for the receipt of benefit is that the man should be available for work. If you once cut away and make a breach in that essential condition, you open the door to every kind- of difficulty, evasion and subterfuge. The whole thing would have to be administered by other means, by setting up an ad hoc body, but it is not worth making this tremendous breach
in a system which is very difficult to administer and which, on the whole, has stood the test of the last 15 years very well.

9.33 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: The hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary has fully proved his ease, and has very rightly taken shelter behind the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and does not wish a breach to be made in them. In that I support him. He has not, however, met the difficulty of how these men who are going to settle, and who wish to settle, on the land are to derive an income or livelihood at all during the first year. He has suggested that there should be local resources which should help the men to keep themselves during the first year, before they begin to derive any profit or produce from their holdings. In a great many cases, however, especially in distressed areas the local authorities themselves do not possess the resources which are necessary to give the financial assistance to the men.
Some special machinery must therefore be devised. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned something about a special ad hoc Bill, but can he give the Committee any assurance or suggest any likelihood that a special ad hoc Bill will be introduced and passed into law in sufficient time to facilitate this work that must go on? We cannot get away from it; we are now at a time when a great many men, particularly in the heavy industries, will never go back to those industries. They have to be placed in a new life. Actually they are not only being placed in new work but changing their whole character, and from wage earners are becoming capitalists. We ought to give every assistance to increasing the number of these capitalists, the creation of a new class who will have their feet firmly planted in the soil and be a credit to their country. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he is going to bring in an ad hoc Bill he will do it within a very short space of time.

Sir S. ROSBOTHAM: After the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause. A strong feeling has been shown in all quarters of the Committee in regard to this matter and I hope that with a view to alleviating unemployment he will bring in an ad hoc Bill and also put into
operation Part II of the Land Acquisition Act.

Mr. MARTIN: May I put one point—

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member insists on speaking the Motion cannot be withdrawn.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Increase of benefit in respect of housekeeper.)

The enactments providing that the weekly rates of benefit shall be increased in respect of certain dependants Shall be amended as follows:—
Where a widower entitled to benefit (not being a person entitled to an increase of the weekly rate otherwise than in respect of dependent children) has residing with him a person in the capacity of housekeeper, the weekly rate shall be increased by eight shillings.—[Mr. Hicks.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The purpose is to insure payment of dependant's benefit, as in the case of a daughter acting as housekeeper after the death of the mother. The present Act defines housekeeper as:
A female person who is residing with the claimant for the purpose of taking care of his or her dependent children and is fully or mainly sustained by the claimant.
It has been held to include the claimant's mother, grandmother or daughter. The new Clause provides for repayment of dependents benefit in the case of a daughter acting as housekeeper to her father in the case of the mother dying, and those who understand working class life will realise the importance of the proposal. It is a case of keeping the home together when the wife has departed. The home may consist of the husband and wife and daughter, and the daughter may be in employment earning her own living. The wife dies. In such tragic circumstances the father is left in a difficulty. He may ask his daughter to come and be his housekeeper or he may break up his home, built up with care and energy and sacrifice, and go into lodgings. In that case his daughter would have to go into lodgings and become acquainted with all sorts of strangers who previously had not come into her life.
I suggest that the claim we are making, that the daughter in such a case should be entitled to dependant's allowance is unanswerable. She will have to give up her job, because I suggest that housekeeping is a full-time job. She cannot go out to work and look after the home. To maintain a home clean and neat, and respectable and comfortable, to do the cooking, is an art, it is not a job which anyone can do, and it is a particularly important job. I appeal to the Minister to recognise the value of the Clause in keeping the home and family intact. I know of no greater act of statesmanship than to keep the family together. It is the unit in our social life upon which the whole superstructure is built, and I suggest that we are justified in making the claim that in the case I have suggested the dependant's benefit should be allowed. It is only proper and just. Indeed, it seems to me that to labour an argument of this character before the Committee is somewhat of an insult. The justice, propriety and honesty of the proposal should commend itself without much discussion and, therefore, I hope the Government will accept it.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: You, Mr. Chairman, have selected the second out of three new Clauses, each of which suggest an increase of benefit in respect of a further adult dependant. Hon. Members who have read the report of the Royal Commission will remember that they gave a long list not merely of existing dependants in respect of whom dependants benefit is payable, but also a list of 14 additional classes of dependants in respect of whom it may be argued on grounds of hardship that they also ought to be included. The Royal Commission pointed out, and I think rightly, that hardship was not the test, that contributions were paid on a flat rate in respect of a man's immediate family, a man and his wife and children, and it is only as a result of a gradual weakening of that principle that the idea of dependant's benefit crept in. The Royal Commission went through the matter very carefully and gave a list of dependants in respect of whom they recommended that benefit should be paid, and that particular list included, I think, the very dependant in respect of whom the hon. Member is moving a new Clause.
But the Royal Commission at the same time recommended a drastic cutting down of existing dependant's benefit and the cutting out of the claimant's father and his step-father, of the claimant's younger brothers and sisters, half-brothers and half-sisters and step-brothers and stepsisters, all of wham are at present included. On balance my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that the simplest, and, on the whole, the best course to pursue was to leave the list as it stands at present, not to make the two additions recommended by the Royal Commission and not to make the excision which the Royal Commission recommended on page 255 of its report. As the Royal Commission went into the matter very fully—hon. Members will see the arguments set out in detail on pages 251 and 258—I will not weary the Committee by going into the matter further, but will merely repeat that we have decided to leave the list as it is.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to support the new Clause. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary has replied at all to the arguments in favour of the Clause. He merely told us about the Royal Commission. I ask the Committee to realise what the new Clause means. We are appealing for an unemployed man with a family who has lost his wife. That represents a tragedy. It is a terrible thing for any man to lose his wife. It is awful for an unemployed man with children to lose the mother of those children. We are living in the midst of this sort of thing, and we are trying to bring it before the Committee as we see it. Probably the widower has a daughter who is working. She may be the eldest of the family, and she may be earning £l or £2 a week, which is a great monetary help to the family in time of need. On the loss of the mother the father is forced to bring the daughter home. He has not only lost his wife but has lost an income of 8s. a week, and that loss is aggravated by the daughter's loss of her income.
Surely as reasonable men we ought to try to ameliorate such terrible conditions. I appeal to the Minister, because we are not making much headway with his understudy. I hope the Minister will not harden his heart like Pharaoh of old. This is a very serious matter for the unemployed man. Owing to circumstances
over which a man has no control the daughter gives up her occupation and looks after the home, and looks after her brothers and sisters and father, and we ask that she should have the same payment as was made to her mother.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member is labouring under a slight misapprehension as to the existing law, because in the case that he is outlining the widower is entitled to draw an adult dependant's allowance for the daughter who comes home in those circumstances to look after the children. [Laughter.]

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is perfectly true, but he who laughs last laughs longest, and hon. Members opposite have laughed too soon. Only where there are children in the home does the law apply; it is not applicable where there are no children.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member was arguing the case where there were brothers and sisters.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is essential that the home should be kept up instead of the man having to go into lodgings. We have known of many such cases. I have in mind the case of a man who simply gave up his home and went to the model lodginghouse. Hellish conditions—that is what they are. They are the conditions that you impose on the working-class in your own country, not on Germans or Jews but on your own fellow-countrymen. When this tragedy happens and a man gives up his home and goes to a model lodging-house, invariably he cannot be got out of the place. He loses all self-respect. It is to safeguard against that, to safeguard our race that we make this appeal. But the appeal is evidently falling on deaf ears. Hon. Members opposite are too much tied up with themselves, quite content, because they are well fed and well clad and well slept and well housed. The folk of whom we are speaking in our appeal are in the opposite condition.
There are two sets of individuals in this matter. There are the individuals who have everything, to whom I am appealing. That is the difficulty. They are people who know nothing about the awful struggle that the workers have in order to eke out a miserable existence. Time and again we have appealed to this House to ease those conditions. We are
told by the highest authorities in the Government that things are getting a wee bit better, that we have got round the corner, that trade is improving, that we have a great year in front of us. The atmosphere is that which the Cabinet have been responsible for creating. The Secretary of State for the Dominions, the one and only one, told us distinctly on the wireless on Saturday night that all was becoming well and that we were the greatest country in the world. Who will deny it when he has said it? I come here to-night, the victim of that atmosphere which has been created by the Government. Surely the Minister of Labour is not going to turn down the Dominions Secretary and the whole Cabinet by saying that he cannot give any concessions, that what they have been saying is not true but that we must allow things to drift on as they are drifting at present and allow this section of the community to go further down in the scale.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. J. REID: Schedule 2 contains a number of items in respect of which the Statutory Committee will be entitled to make up their minds at their leisure, as to whether alterations should be made or not in the framework of the present legislation. The Schedule, in particular, contains a provision that the definition of "dependent child" may be altered or varied by the Statutory Committee at a later stage without further legislation. It is obvious that a dependent child is not the only type of dependant in respect of whom some extension may be required as time goes on, and I therefore ask whether it would not be possible to include all dependants as well as dependent children in that provision. This is a matter about which, as we have been told, the Royal Commission found great difficulty. It is a question which requires more detailed consideration than we can give it. I suggest therefore that an alteration might be made which would enable the Statutory Committee to make a comprehensive decision covering the whole of this complicated subject matter.

Mr. HUDSON: Of course, the Statutory Committee has the power to recommend, if they see fit, an alteration in the specific rate of benefit in respect of dependants and, speaking subject to correction, I think also in the definition.

Mr. REID: Yes, but has the Statutory Committee the power to vary the definition of a dependant other than a dependent child. Obviously, it is no good altering the rate of benefit. What we want to do is to entitle such people as housekeepers to come into the scheme as dependants. What is required is power, not to alter the rate payable to people already in the scheme, but power to extend the definition of those covered by the scheme. That power is partly in the Bill, because it already enables the Statutory Committee to extend or contract the definition of "dependent child." Why should a similar power not be given with regard to all other dependants?

9.59 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: My impression is that the Committee can do so, but we shall be discussing the Schedules to-morrow, and between now and then I shall get the best advice I can, as to whether my impression is correct or not. I am nearly sure that it is within the power of the Statutory Committee to consider this matter and to recommend an addition to the category of adult dependants if they see fit to do so. I do not wish to be taken as pledging myself but as I say I shall go into the matter before the Schedule comes up for discussion and let the hon. Member and the Committee know the result of my inquiry.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Abolition of waiting period.)

The Second Schedule to the principal Act (which provides for the rates and periods of unemployment benefit) shall have effect as if the words "after the first three days of unemployment" in paragraph 1 thereof were omitted.—[Mr. Thorne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. THORNE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In 1924 when the Labour Government were in office and a similar Measure to this was before the House of Commons, the then Minister of Labour abolished the waiting period with the result that great benefits were conferred especially on the distressed areas. I hope that those Members who represent distressed areas will support this New Clause. When a man or a woman becomes unemployed at present a waiting period of
three days is necessary and in some cases it may be a fortnight or three weeks before such a person can get unemployment benefit. Each case has to go up to Kew and it may be two or three weeks before the case is dealt with by the authorities at Kew and the report upon it comes back to the manager of the local exchange. The result is that the people affected have to appeal to the public assistance committee. When the waiting period was abolished under the Labour Government it saved the ratepayers in West Ham something like £50,000, and I would remind hon. Members representing districts like Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, and others areas, now known as distressed areas, that this Clause would be a great relief to the authorities in those areas, and would relieve the public assistance committees.
I do not think the Minister can claim that the fund is not in a position to stand this concession. The Minister the other day reported that there was a surplus of £6,000,000, and, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when there is a live register of 2,500,000 the fund is a paying proposition. When the figure falls below that—and I understand that there is a big drop in the unemployment figures—to a figure of 2,200,000, we are told that there is going to be a saving of about £20,000,000 per annum. At present, the fund is saving about £12,000,000 to £14,000,000 per annum. What this concession would cost I am not in a position to say. I have not attempted to work out what it would mean financially, but I know that the fund would be able to stand this burden. There has been a great agitation on the part of those from the distressed areas and an attempt to impress upon the Chancellor the necessity for giving more relief. If that is the considered view of the representatives of those areas, I suggest that this new Clause provides one way of helping those districts.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I wish to support the Clause. I think most hon. Members will agree that when the waiting period was originally introduced a provision of this kind was perhaps justifiable, but to-day you have such a large number of people who have been unemployed for a very long period that it is another question.
It might have been argued justifiably that if persons were idle for a very short period, say, a few days, and then got back to regular employment, there was hardly a case for the application of unemployment benefit for such a short time, as it might give rise to very many administrative complications, but surely there can be no justification for such an argument to-day. It might also have been argued some time ago that it was impossible to meet a claim of this kind on financial grounds, but that can no longer be argued, because we have had it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night and from the Minister himself that there is now a surplus in the fund.
Therefore, in view of the fact that we are now faced with a trade depression and that many persons have been idle for a great length of time, surely such persons should not be penalised by having to face oftentimes a second and a third waiting period. Then there is the very important point that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne), because this question certainly does affect the distressed areas. In counties like Glamorganshire it means that a public assistance committee has been obliged to render aid to those persons for the few days that they have been obliged to wait, and that applies to all the other distressed areas as well. After the impressive speech made by my hon. Friend, we are hoping that the Minister will appreciate the reasons advanced in favour of the new Clause and will accept it.

10.8 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: This discussion is one that I have heard on many previous occasions in the last 10 years, and the Debate on every Unemployment Insurance Bill in which I have taken part has always contained an Amendment proposing that the waiting period should be either cut down or abolished. On every occasion, for one reason or another, those Amendments have been resisted.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that in the Labour Government of 1924 the waiting period was abolished?

Mr. BUCHANAN: No, it was reduced to three days.

Sir H. BETTERTON: It was not abolished; it was reduced to three days, as the hon. Member says. The waiting period of three days was originally provided in the original Act, namely, the Act of 1920, but except during the periods from 1920 to June, 1921, and from August, 1924, to September, 1926, the period which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the waiting period has always been and still is six days. In this matter the various Governments have followed trade union practice. Some of them more generously than others, but all, so far as I know, provide for a waiting period, and although this matter was considered both by the Royal Commission and by the Blanesburgh Committee, both of them were in favour of a period of six days. As we know, this question of a waiting period has been modified from time to time and its application varied by an alteration of the continuity rule. That rule at the present time is that a waiting period is served only if the applicant's last period of continuous unemployment was 10 weeks or more ago.
I was asked what the cost of accepting this proposal would be to the fund. The cost would be about £3,500,000 a year. One hon. Member asked whether this is a matter that could be considered by the Statutory Committee. It is clearly a matter which is within the purview of the Statutory Committee. It is one of the things on which they can, if they choose, make recommendations, and I have no doubt that this is a question that they will consider, having regard to the resources at their disposal. In these circumstances I cannot accept the new Clause, but I would ask the Committee to rest assured that this question will no doubt be considered by the Statutory Committee.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Minister is correct in his historical survey. This or a similar Amendment was accepted in 1924 by Mr. Tom Shaw on the motion of one of the Liberals, seconded, I think, by one of the hon. Members for Birkenhead. Since then we have travelled, and the line of concession has been to extend the six days over four weeks, and then six weeks, and then ten weeks. I was going to ask if the Minister could not reconsider the matter,
bearing in mind that, for good or ill, we have cut down our numbers considerably inside the insurance fold. We have about half the number of people covered by insurance, and consequently the cost that might have been put on a previous Ministry by such a Clause as this is not the cost that would be imposed under this Bill. Very often if a man falls out of work on a Friday or a Saturday the administrative arrangements are such that he gets only three days' benefit which has to keep him for three weeks until he can get a full week's benefit. It is true that in some cases the Poor Law steps in to help him over that period, but he is very often the type of man who is not accustomed to claiming Poor Law relief.
I have in mind men in the building trade in which they get jobs lasting for about three months, which is just over the period of ten weeks; they have periods of broken time, perhaps, owing to bad weather, and when they are dismissed they have to wait three weeks before they get a full week's unemployment benefit. That is a terrible hardship, and, in view of the fact that the Government have cut down the number of recipients of standard benefit, the Minister might well reconsider this matter. He stated that trade unions imposed a waiting period, but I disdain comparing a trade union with a State scheme. A good many unions have had to give up paying unemployment benefit at all. They cannot keep it going because they have not the resources that the State has. Those that have kept going have only done so because of exceptional circumstances, and it is not true to argue that they all impose a waiting period. Even if they did, it would have no point in this connection. The point is that to ask men who are unemployed after three months to wait with only about three days' money for three weeks is a terrible hardship. When I was younger a man who started work in an industry usually got a guaranteed spell of work. We looked upon starting in most of the engineering shops as starting for a reasonable spell. To-day industry has completely altered and men are now taken on for comparatively short periods.
If the Minister would even consider making the period longer than 10 weeks it would help. At least he ought to make
it for the 26 weeks that is covered for benefit purposes. That would be a considerable help. The present practice falls particularly hard on extremely worthy people who do not want to ask for parish relief. I doubt very much if under the Schedule they will be entitled to draw Poor Law relief. They may come on for a claim under the Public Assistance Board, but I am not sure that even then we can conceive of the board paying if an Act of Parliament has laid it down that the applicants are not eligible for it. I trust that the Minister will reconsider this point, seeing that we are dealing with good insurance lives, and see if anything can be done to reduce the waiting period or to abolish it, or, if he cannot give way on that, to extend the 10 weeks' period. Nothing is harder or falls more cruelly on these people than this constantly-recurring waiting period.

10.21 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I hope hon. Members will not press this Clause. The cost of adopting this proposal has been estimated at £3,500,000. In the course of our discussions many suggestions have been put forward for relaxations on this point or that. Quite clearly the Statutory Committee cannot do more than the funds at their disposal permit, and if £3,500,000 is taken for this purpose so much less will be available for other purposes. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised the question of the continuity rule and is urging me to extend the 10 weeks bridge to 26 weeks. That is a matter which can be considered by the Statutory Committee, and if they think there are sufficient funds at their disposal they can consider the continuity rule as well as the waiting period. I think this Committee would be doing a real disservice if they took it out of the power of the Statutory Committee, for all practical purposes, to consider both the continuity rule and the waiting period at the same time. The two matters are so intimately bound up that I think the Statutory Committee ought to have a free hand to consider both of them in the light of the resources at their disposal.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 252.

Division No. 201.]
AYES.
[8.59 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar. South)
Batey, Joseph
Buchanan, George.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cove, William G.


Daggar, George
John, William
Parkinson, John Allen


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Rathbone, Eleanor


Dobble, William
Lawson, John James
Rea, Walter Russell


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert
Thorne, William James


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
White, Henry Graham


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Wood, sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Harris, Sir Percy
Maxton, James
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jenkins, Sir William
Paling, Wilfred
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Martin, Thomas B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Apsley, Lord
Gower, Sir Robert
Meller, Sir Richard James


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rPd. N.)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, William P. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Baille, Sir Adrian W. M.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Milne, Charles


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Grimston, R. V.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Melson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moreing, Adrian C.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Hales, Harold K.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Borodale, Viscount
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Munro, Patrick


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nunn, William


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Broadbent, Colonel John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peat, Charles U.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hepworth, Joseph
Penny, Sir George


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Petherick, M.


Burghley, Lord
Hornby, Frank
Pike, Cecil F.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Horsbrugh, Florence
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Burnett, John George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Carver, Major William H.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rankin, Robert


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leotric
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Conant, R. J. E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Remer, John R.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles Montrose)
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Law Sir Alfred
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Leckie, J. A.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Croom-Johnson, R. P. 
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross, Ronald D.


Cross, R.H




Crossley, A. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lewis, Oswald
Runge, Norah Cecil


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Liddall, Walter S.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dickie, John P.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Salt, Edward W.


Drewe, Cedric
Llewellin, Major John J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Duggan, Hubert John
Loftus, Pierce C.
Scone, Lord


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Selley, Harry R.


Dunglass, Lord
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Elmley, Viscount
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
McKie, John Hamilton
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waller D.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Somerset, Thomas


Fox, Sir Gifford
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Maitland, Adam
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Soper, Richard



Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Spent, William Patrick
Turton, Robert Hugh
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertl'd)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Stevenson, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wilton, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Storey, Samuel
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Strauss, Edward A.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Withers, Sir John James


Tate, Mavis Constance
wells, Sidney Richard
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Thompson, Sir Luke
Weymouth, Viscount
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.



Thorp, Linton Theodore
Whyte, Jardine Bell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Mr. Womersley and Dr. Morris-Jones.

Division No. 202.]
AYES.
[10.23 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Pickering, Ernest H.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Rea, Walter Russell


Buchanan, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Rothschild, James A. de


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Dobble, William
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wilmot, John


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dickie, John P.
Leckie, J. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Albery, Irving James
Duckworth, George A. V.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lewis, Oswald


Apsley, Lord
Duggan, Hubert John
Liddall, Walter S.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dunglass, Lord
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Atholl, Duchess of
Eastwood, John Francis
Llewellin, Major John J.


Ballie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Elmley, Viscount
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Balniel, Lord
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pooll
Loftus, Pierce C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fox, Sir Gilford
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mabane, William


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Bernays, Robert
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McCorquodale, M. S.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Greene, William P. C.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Grimston, R. V.
Maitland, Adam


Bracken, Brendan
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Martin, Thomas B.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hales, Harold K.
Meller, Sir Richard James


Buchan, John
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Milne, Charles


Burghley, Lord
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mitcheson, G. G.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Burnett, John George
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Carver, Major William H.
Hepworth, Joseph
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morrison, William Shepherd


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hornby, Frank
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Munro, Patrick


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Nunn, William


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Patrick, Colin M.


Conant, R. J. E.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Copeland, Ida
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peat, Charles U.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Petherick, M.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Pike, Cecil F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cross, R. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Crossley, A. C.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Pybus, Sir Percy John


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrese)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Law Sir Alfred
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Rankin, Robert
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Somerset, Thomas
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Somervell, Sir Donald
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Remer, John R.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
soper, Richard
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wells, Sidney Richard


Ropner, Colonel L.
Spens, William Patrick
Weymouth, Viscount


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ross, Ronald D.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stevenson, James
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Storey, Samuel
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wills, Wilfrld D.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tslde)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Summersby, Charles H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Salt, Edward W.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wise, Alfred R.


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thorp, Linton Theodora
Womersley, Walter James


Savery, Samuel Servington
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Scone, Lord
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'neaks)


Selley, Harry R.
Train, John



Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Insurance of pithead baths' attendants.)

The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, take into consideration the application of the Unemployment Insurance Acts to pithead baths' attendants and shall make a report to the Minister containing such recommendations as the committee may think fit.—[Mr. Daggar.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. DAGGAR: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is a matter of much regret to many of us on these benches that this provision was not included in the Bill, because the matter is one of considerable importance. Up to December, 1932, as many as 121 collieries in Great Britain were equipped with pithead baths under the welfare scheme, and at 45 others baths were in course of construction, while 54 had, or were to have, canteens. These circumstances make the number of men employed at pithead baths and canteens a matter of considerable importance. It is very difficult to ascertain correctly the number of men so employed. In December, 1932, I put a question to the Minister of Labour asking him the number of men employed in connection with pithead baths in Great Britain, and whether it was proposed, under the new Unemployment Insurance Bill, to include these men as contributors to the fund. He replied that there were employed at these baths about 400 men and that the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance had recommended that they should be brought within the scheme and that
recommendation at the time was under consideration.
In view of that answer, I very much regret that the Clause was not made a part of the Bill, and we have no alternative but to ask that the Statutory Committee shall immediately give consideration to the inclusion of these men. Many of them, before undertaking this work, were in receipt of small amounts of compensation. Some were without means of support and some at present are without any other means of support. There are other men working in and about the colliery who are included in the scheme and why the Government have not undertaken to include these men requires some explanation. There are others, in all probability, who paid into the fund when in employment, but, simply because they have been transferred to this kind of work, they are no longer entitled to benefit when the pits are rendered idle. It is true that in the Bill the Minister has the right to issue regulations to include them. Nevertheless, we are desirous that this Clause shall be inserted and that immediate consideration shall be given to the case of these men by the Committee.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: The Clause is unnecessary. The question of pithead bath attendants was specifically considered by the Royal Commission, which made certain definite recommendations on the subject, and it is in order to be able to meet those recommendations among others that we have included the general powers in Clause 2. As soon as the Bill
passes into law, it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to frame regulations dealing among other things with pithead bath attendants and submit them for the opinion and advice of the Statutory Committee. I have no doubt the Committee will give it their attention, and then it will be possible to make the necessary order to deal with these specific points. Therefore, the matter is actually covered, along with a number of other borderline cases.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: Lord Eustace Percy.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask, Sir, why you are not calling my Clause—(insurance of outworkers)?

The CHAIRMAN: I did not select it. I regarded it as a matter dealt with by the previous Motion.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Employers' contributions.)

It shall be the duty of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee to investigate the effect on employment in insured industries of the liability imposed on employers by Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and the possibility of substituting for the provisions of those Sub-sections another method of assessing the contributions of industry to the Unemployment Fund, and to report their conclusions to the Minister.—[Lord E. Percy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, which I hardly expected to see reached, proposes that it shall be the duty of the Statutory Committee to consider and report upon the present method of assessing contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. We have an alternative Amendment down to the Second Schedule which would at last bring that question within the purview of the Statutory Committee without laying upon them a definite statutory duty to take it into consideration. But on this occasion we wish to suggest the more drastic proposal that they shall actually be given the statutory duty to consider it. It must strike anyone who has considered the broad and ultimate effects of the insurance scheme as peculiar that this subject is not, even under the Bill, within the purview of the Statutory Committee
at all, that it remains a subject on which the Government and Parliament alone can make an alteration in the law and lies outside the power of the Statutory Committee even with the Minister's concurrence. Surely that must make the future administration of the fund almost impossible.
I have noticed in these Debates that speaker after speaker has got up and has spoken of the happy financial position of the fund as if it was one on which we could congratulate ourselves. But how is that prospectively prosperous financial position to be gained? It is to be gained because every increase in employment not only relieves calls upon the fund, but increases the income of the fund, because this House is directly taxing the employer for every single extra man he employs, and that tax is directly proportionate to the number of men he employs. We speak very often airily of various fundamental alterations in the organisation of industry which would enable more men to be employed.
We talk about shortening hours, increasing staffs and spreading work over a larger area. How do we suppose that such a reform can possibly be carried out, quite apart from these other difficulties, when you tax industry in proportion to the number of men it employs? You tax capital in proportion as it is used to employ labour. You say to the employer, the capitalist, not as I, a poor benighted Tory, would be inclined to say to him, "You possess capital. It is the first duty of capital to employ labour, and unless your capital carries out that duty we shall tax your capital because you do not use it to employ labour"—instead of taking a benighted Tory view like that, you say to the capitalist, "If you use your capital so as to gain the maximum of profit with the minimum employment of labour, good luck to you, but if you try and use your capital for the maximum employment of labour and the minimum profit, then we shall tax you in proportion as you employ labour." That is the principle upon which, at the present moment, the whole finances of unemployment insurance, let alone health insurance, is based There is no doubt that in some degree this method of assessing contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund is one of the direct causes of unemployment. It is a direct discouragement to capital to employ labour.
It may be said: "What is your alternative? Is there any alternative?" At this hour I will not go at length into alternatives, but I have attempted to go at length into them elsewhere. It may be true that there is no real alternative, unless you can get such an organisation of industry as will enable a body representative of industry to compound for a lump sum in insurance contributions for a period of years: a block grant, as it were, irrespective of the actual number of men employed. Such an organisation of industry may not exist at the present time, but I believe that the only way, if we are ever going to get the kind of organisation of industry which many of us and many industrialists look forward to, is rather by using measures for the proper administration of the social services than by attempts to bludgeon industry into what is called rationalisation by threatening them, with a big stick, with the withdrawal of protectionist duties which at present protect them from foreign imports. I indicate that as a line of a possible future solution.
It cannot be that the only way of financing an Insurance Fund of this kind is by a direct tax on the number of men employed. For the future of this system, for the greater employment of men in this country, not spreading employment for a larger number of people by reducing the hours of labour, it is essential that there should be some alteration in this respect. At the present time no provision is made for it and no consideration of the problem is contemplated in this Bill. It is outside the purview of the Statutory Committee, and yet how can the Statutory Committee consider the future finance of the fund if at any moment His Majesty's Government, or a Government of this country energetic enough to consider this subject at all, can come down and spoil all our calculations by a revolution in the system of contributions to the fund? I am afraid that unless we provide for this side of finance, for the contributions side as well as the benefit side, we shall find the Statutory Committee and the Government of the future at cross purposes, the fund will hang up between the two, and we shall see industry going in the direction of greater unemployment because of the effect of this tax on employment under the fund. I move the
new Clause in the hope of eliciting an assurance from the Government that they are contemplating some action, or some provision for action, in regard to this matter.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: It is a pity that this new Clause has been delayed until this hour of the night, because there could have been a very useful discussion upon it. I do not want to stand between the Committee and the Parliamentary Secretary, but I want to say that this matter has been raised upon more than one occasion. I remember a very instructive speech by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when, with the courage and independence of thought which has been characteristic of the Noble Lord to-night, he found himself in the company of other courageous and independent Gentlemen on this side of the House. We have always been advocates of a non-contributory system. The Noble Lord and other hon. Members who supported him find themselves in this respect in company with hon. Members on this side of the House. They have laid a scheme to which they were not tied in detail before the Royal Commission, in which they said what many thinkers in this House have said, that there ought to be a non-contributory system and that the funds ought in effect to be levied in the same way as funds are levied for the social services. Therefore, if it is possible to get a vote upon this Clause, I wish that we may have one.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: We have not time to go into this Clause with the fullness that it deserves. The right hon. Gentleman who moved it has made a deep study of this matter and will forgive me if I am presumptious enough to say that he made a most interesting speech. It will suffice for me to say to-night that the Royal Commission which was set up to consider this, among other matters, gave it very full consideration. I agree that to a great extent the present contribution partakes of the nature of a poll tax, and is exposed to the obvious criticism that the more employment an individual employer gives, the higher his contribution has to be. On the other hand, it is open to argument that the employer gets a definite service from the fund and the whole system. The large employer of
labour, especially, requires a large reserve of labour, and it is only fair that, in return for this reserve being maintained at his disposal, he should contribute in proportion to the service he receives. A very good case can be made out for the employer's contribution, and there is an equally good case for exacting a contribution from the employé, and again for suggesting that the State should contribute, as being interested from the social point of view and also as a trustee.
In every important industrial country, even including parts of the United States, there is an unemployment insurance scheme with contributions based on very differing systems. I am not prepared to say that some of these might not, in conceivable circumstances, be an improvement on our own, but the fact remains that ours has been in existence for 22 years, that a Royal Commission has spent a large number of months in examining the matter and has received evidence from a large number of persons in the country and decided that the existing system, with certain emendations, is the most suitable system that could be made. I should like to say, in conclusion, that the right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in saying that the Statutory Committee did not consider such a change to be within its powers. It is quite within the powers of the Statutory Committee, if my right hon. Friend asked for their advice, to make an inquiry into the whole matter and tender advice for such changes as they might consider desirable, not on their own motion, but in answer to specific requests by my right hon. Friend. With that assurance I hope that, as we cannot go into the matter very fully, my right hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the Clause.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. NOEL LINDSAY: I rise to support this new Clause. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary says that he regrets that there has not been time for a fuller Debate on this most important question. If that be so, what is the objection to accepting the Clause? He said that there is power, if the Minister submits this question to the Advisory Committee, for the Advisory Committee to consider it. Can he give us an assurance that when the pressure which will
be on the Advisory Committee is a little subsided he will then submit this question to them? The new Clause merely lays on the Statutory Committee the duty of investigating the matter. It is one of the most serious problems in the financial and general structure of the insurance scheme, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman between now and Report to consider the question of submitting it to the Statutory Committee or else to accept the Amendment. I do not intend to emphasise its importance. There is hardly an employer in the country who does not constantly complain of the heavy burden which this contribution lays upon him, and the right hon. Gentleman must know that there are probably thousands of employers who with a possibility of expansion if risks are taken hold back because they know that every extra man they take on means an additional burden. In large works and factories, in shipbuilding yards, the accumulative effect of this tax is enormous, land it is a tragic thing that at a time when we are bending all our energies to provide a constructive policy of employment we should, by a short sighted policy which has never really been properly investigated, take away with one hand what we are giving with the other.
When this provision was first introduced there was a logical reason for it. It was regarded as being an incentive to an employer to provide employment and thereby get his reward. If he provided steady employment he received a rebate. That incentive has disappeared, no longer does an employer who keeps his men in work get a rebate, and with its disappearance has gone the whole logical reason for the employers contribution. I am glad to find the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in agreement with us on this point. He speaks of a non-contributory scheme. We do not advocate a non-contributory scheme as far as workpeople are concerned. I am prepared to see the one-third, the employers contribution, made up from the Exchequer. I do not desire to impose any additional burden on the workmen, but I think it is right that a workman himself should have a personal interest in the Insurance Fund. That is a very different thing from supporting a non-contributory scheme.

10.57 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I will not attempt to divide the Committee at this hour, but if we have the good fortune to have our Amendment on the Second Schedule discussed to-morrow I shall suggest that we should then test the opinion of the Committee on the narrower issue as to whether it should fall automatically within the purview on the initiative of the Statutory Committee.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask
leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Commander Southby.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Southby.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.